37

God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden because Eve ate the fruit that God told her not to. And this let evil into the world. If God loves everyone, so much so that he let his son die for us, then why has every subsequent human and animal had to live and deal with the result of evil?

How does the Bible explain this, given that it says God is just?

ThaddeusB
  • 7,773
  • 4
  • 43
  • 74
Jonathan.
  • 1,109
  • 2
  • 10
  • 15

11 Answers11

13

There is an assumption in this question that is actually the very problem that the question addresses.

This question assumes that in the exact same situation you would act differently than Adam and Eve would. However, why would you? Would a loving God not have placed the people in the garden that gave humanity the best chance at continuing at sinless existence? Adam and Eve were representatives of all of humanity. Do you think that if a better representative existed God would not have chosen them?

Yes Adam and Eve sinned, but the basic reason is that any human being placed in that situation would have done exactly the same thing. The temptation was very strong and they fell.

This was God's plan. He intended for Adam and Eve to sin so that he could work out his plan and glorify himself all the more. The story of Adam and Eve points to Christ.

Romans 5:17

17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

If sin entered through one man so salvation has also entered by way of one man. If we cannot acknowledge sin came through Adam then we cannot acknowledge the the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient.

wax eagle
  • 7,037
  • 5
  • 42
  • 76
  • 15
    So god made every suffer just increase his own glory, aren't we told to exactly not that. You can't say that any human would have done the same thing, unless youre saying that anyone then would be Adam and Eve the people and not themselves as we know today. some people obey the people in authority. Only 1/2 the population at the time chose to eat the apple (first). Maybe the serpent choose eve to persuade because it knew Adam wouldn't or would be less likely to. It also says that that action brought sin into the world, clearly sin already existed in the serpent, and Eve had the sinful... – Jonathan. Sep 05 '11 at 15:28
  • 7
    ...temptation to what she did. You make God sound like one of those demonic Gods you see in scifi films which use humans for their own pleasure, etc. (eg Ori in Stargate) – Jonathan. Sep 05 '11 at 15:29
  • 2
    Jonathan, are you familiar with how representation works in government? Adam and Eve were our representatives. 2nd Adam and Eve both ate the fruit, Adam was right with Eve when she ate it, he know what she was doing. Adam's sin was actually worse because he wasn't directly tempted. Sin existed (Lucifer fell before creation.) but had not entered the world, I believe Lucifer was allowed to act on earth because God allowed him to (the discussion between God and Satan in Job would be and example of how this worked). Thus God allowed (planned for) sin to enter the world. – wax eagle Sep 05 '11 at 15:35
  • 2
    God cares only for his own glory, he is perfect and thus deserves the glory. Yes he created us for his own pleasure and he works out the world in order that he can glorify himself. @Caleb describes God as a full-on egoist and I'm inclined to agree. – wax eagle Sep 05 '11 at 15:39
  • 1
    yes I am aware I vote for a member of parliament and they represent me in parliament. I didnt vote, nor did anyone agree or say ok, etc, to Adam and Eve being our representives. What was Adams right to interfere with Eve's free will? Growing up I was told God loves you for who you are, since joining this site I am starting to wonder if I was brought up s Christian or some other religion that happens to have the same name. – Jonathan. Sep 05 '11 at 15:42
  • @Jonathan That's a very interesting point to consider, there is certainly more than one religion using the "Christian" moniker. You should keep digging until you get to the bottom of it all :) – Caleb Sep 05 '11 at 16:23
  • 4
    I wouldn't say that god "intended" for us to sin; He allowed it because we have free will and that was our choice, but He didn't do anything to help it along... @Jonathan: I can certainly understand having that viewpoint, I was once wondering whether something like that was true myself. This answer I wrote explains why god gave us free will in the first place. – RCIX Sep 05 '11 at 16:35
  • 1
    @Rcix. If God did not intend for us to sin why didn't he prevent it? Why on earth would an omniscient and omnipotent being allow something he did not intend. From our perspective we have free will, from God's it's a laughable triviality. – wax eagle Sep 05 '11 at 17:05
  • 1
    Well, and this is something I haven't really worked out much beyond an "it doesn't feel right", but what would be the point of not giving us free will? Then we'd be no better than [insert animal here] who loves Him because He's forced them to, and I don't see how that would glorify Him at all. And if you DO give free will to humans, then they must be allowed to A: actually make a choice with that free will (thus the reason to have the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden), B; have the consequences of that choice fully carried out. – RCIX Sep 05 '11 at 17:11
  • @waxeagle, imo, If a parent doesn't intend their child to grow and be a doctor they won't lock them away to prevent it. Same thing with God, he would have preferred that they hadn't sinned, but God knows everything, every decision we have to make he knows what will happen in each possible answer. Since the beginning of everything God has known every possible outcome for every possible decision including the decisions that we will never have to make. In Science , there is an idea (I seriously hesitate to theory) that when you make decision "time" splits off, one branch if you decide Yes... – Jonathan. Jan 12 '12 at 15:10
  • ...the other if you decide No. God knows both branches and all the decisions that will need to be made in each branch. That way God can know everything and every outcome and yet we can still have free will. To us the number of "branches" is infinite (if you decide to hold your breath for a fraction of a second that can lead to a whole new branch for every human, so when you have billions and billions of living things as well as the randomness in nature, the number of possible outcomes is indescribable but God knows every single one, and to him it's the equivalent of us being able to count to 5 – Jonathan. Jan 12 '12 at 15:16
  • @Jonathan - That is a rather powerless God that you portray. God ordains all things, he doesn't leave them to human whimsy. The God you portray in this comment could have his plan fouled by the smallest human error. That's preposterous. – wax eagle Jan 12 '12 at 15:21
  • @waxeagle, so what happened to free will then? The reason there is sin is because of human free will, God is perfect and therefore couldn't have created something sinful, so becoming sinful must have been a human decision. (IMO) His plan is not just for one circumstance, his plan works in all circumstances. Given that Adam and Eve had free will (which they must have as they sinned), they could've chosen to obey God, and then there wouldn't have been a need for God's plan for Jesus. God will tell people what he wants them to do, e.g. to go to non-Christian countries and spread his word, but.... – Jonathan. Jan 12 '12 at 15:27
  • ... it is up to that person to obey God or not. Through the Bible you find people disobeying God, going against God's will and yet that did not through off his plan. He's more powerful than humans, so just as the US President can decide to launch a nuclear attack on a country and the average Joe Bloggs can't, we aren't capable of making decisions that would be able to throw off God's plan, never mind that his plan will work no matter what we do. – Jonathan. Jan 12 '12 at 15:30
  • @ wax eagle, you mentioned Adam and Eve represent humanity similar to how representation works in government. This seems to be a flawed analogy since the people consciously choose their representatives in government exercising their free will. – Probe Deeper Jan 13 '12 at 15:34
6

Basically anyone that is born, is born of the world, so the act of being conceived brings brings the stain of original sin upon each and every person.

There is an interesting article (pdf) that goes through some of the thoughts of the early church fathers that relate to this subject. This is one of the more relevant portions of the article:

What had remained implied in his letter to Simplician, Augustine now states outright, that each of us born into the world is born in guilt. Furthermore, having come to see in his earlier writings that to suppose the preexistence of souls introduces an insuperable dualism into the person, Augustine at this point is convinced that the guilt present at birth could not have been contracted by one’s personal choice, and so it must be attributable to the first man. Finally, the agent said to involve us in the first sin is concupiscence

Going down the path of this question, and doubting original sin was a major controversy 1500 years ago, but St. Augustine fought against it, and for an introduction to what the Pelagian controversy is and why it is still controversial today you can look at major parts (2) and (3) in this page:

Here is what Pelagius taught, from the FAQ above:

By this time he had several disciples in different areas. His teachings were identified as:

  1. Denial of original sin (i.e. depravity or corruption) inherited from Adam. Each person is born as a new, free agent with the same powers of choice and responsibilities as Adam.
  2. Denial of original guilt received from Adam's sin. Among other things, this called into question the necessity of infant baptism, since there was nothing an infant needed to be baptized for. However, Pelagius himself held that infant baptism was good and should continue, though not for the remission of infant sins.
  3. Affirmation of the ability of men to be free from sin. Consequently, the denial of the necessity of God's working in order to accomplish freedom from sin. The power is in us, even if God helps.

UPDATE:

I mentioned Pelagius and gave some references to an article that references what was written from people at the beginning of a heresy where this topic can lead you. This is not a simple topic, and the debate has been going on for 1500 years. Because we can die and because we are not automatically granted access to Heaven is how we are being punished for the introduction of sin. God sent Jesus to pay the price, and that allowed us to have the ability to get into Heaven, so, the all-loving God sent his only Son to pay a price for a sin that he didn't commit, nor suffer from. Anselm wrote about this in Cur Deus Homo (Why God became man), and the basic explanation of his approach is found at http://www.tonyfinlay.co.uk/Anselm.htm.

If you want to get more into this subject then the best starting point, if reason is important, is St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica (Summary of Theology), found at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm. I linked to where he starts to specifically talk about Original Sin, and Article 4 may be of particular interest.

James Black
  • 2,853
  • 14
  • 11
  • how does this answer the question of why A&E's sin applies to us. – wax eagle Sep 05 '11 at 15:04
  • But children are not born with sin because they automatically go to heaven. But your first sentence is irrelevant anyway because it doesn't say why, why God "stains" every new born with sin. God says in the bible he will not punish a child/descendant for his fathers sin. – Jonathan. Sep 05 '11 at 15:21
  • @wax eagle - We are born of this world, by being born into this world. That is the answer to the question, the rest is explaining and giving some references to understand the answer better. – James Black Sep 05 '11 at 16:03
  • @Jonathan. - Children do not know right from wrong until they are older, which is why their actions won't be held against them. Because of this is why the Roman Catholic Church believed in Limbo for many centuries, to explain where unbaptized children go. We are not born in grace, as our soul has been stained, which is why the early church practiced infant baptism, to remove that stain. – James Black Sep 05 '11 at 16:07
  • @Jonathan There are different views on whether children are "innocent" until they are older and have more understanding. Catholic tradition goes one way, many (but not all) Protestant traditions go another. I don't think there is any teaching in the Bible that says all children get a free pass into heaven. – Caleb Sep 05 '11 at 16:35
  • However you turn it: It just makes totally no sense whatsoever. Sin or no sin, either way we are still being punished for this eating the fruit. Completely incompatible with an all loving God. Please read my answer. Thank you. – vonjd Sep 05 '11 at 17:48
  • @vonjd - Please see my update. – James Black Sep 05 '11 at 19:14
  • @James: Thank you. It is much clearer now - I un-downvoted. – vonjd Sep 05 '11 at 19:28
  • James - excellent and enlightening response. – Probe Deeper Jan 12 '12 at 22:17
6

The story of Adam and Eve is not about God punishing us for the sin of one man. God punishes us for our own sins, which we have all committed:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23 NIV)

If anything, the story of Adam and Eve is there not to explain why are punished, but to explain why each person individually chooses to sin.

Flimzy
  • 22,191
  • 20
  • 105
  • 212
  • Well if eve hadn't sinned none of us would be sinning now. And the bible was written after Adam and eve – Jonathan. Sep 06 '11 at 07:23
  • @Jonathan: It may or may not be true that we would not be sinning now if Adam and Eve had never committed the first sin. But even if it would be true, they did commit that first sin, and we do all choose to sin. – Flimzy Sep 06 '11 at 13:37
  • Eve's action brought sin into the world, it was only after it happened they realised they we're naked etc. If sin didn't exist (because she didn't commit that sin) on earth then we would be choosing to sin now. And remember eve didn't sin without help, it was not her instinct to sin, if the serpent hadnt been there she most likely wouldn't have. – Jonathan. Sep 06 '11 at 15:41
  • @Jonathan I think its super easy to pick on just Eve. But they both ate willingly. Gen 3:6. Man and Woman are equally responsible. – Matt Oct 11 '16 at 19:27
3

Adam and Eve were made perfect, but with free will. They chose to sin. Would we not make the same choice, if we were in their place? Since we've all chosen to sin at some point (Romans 3:10-12) in our lives, I think the answer must be Yes.

Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE
  • 17,735
  • 25
  • 84
  • 152
  • If they were made perfect surely they would not have the imperfect thought to sin? If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, we would be naked in a garden enjoying a good life. So by them choosing to sin, God decided to change the lives of everyone of their descendants. – Jonathan. Feb 01 '13 at 13:56
3

We are not necessarily "being punished".

We are not held accountable for their sin. Adam and Eve, our first ancestors, became sinful and we have inherited their sinful nature being born from them. Adam failed where Christ succeeded. That is why we must be "born again".

God chose perfectly a man and woman who would represent mankind. Would not all of us at some point be tempted and have walked in disobedience?

Nick Rolando
  • 1,782
  • 1
  • 13
  • 22
  • So I will not inherit my dad's sin, but I will inherit Adam and Eve's? – Jonathan. Jan 10 '12 at 22:27
  • @Jonathan You are not inheriting their sin, you are inheriting the sinful nature that they became. – Nick Rolando Jan 10 '12 at 22:31
  • surely that's worse, as you then have to make the conscious decision to not sin? Or at least just as bad, why should I have the nature to sin, just because 2 people a long time ago did something wrong? – Jonathan. Jan 10 '12 at 22:34
  • It wasn't "wrong". They had no knowledge of right and wrong yet. They knew, however, with the general knowledge of an adult, that they were going in opposition to their maker and provider. God gave them life and abundance and they went in opposition to God out of selfishness. You are actually lucky, because they probably had thought that when God said "in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die" they probably interpreted that as a literal earth day, and thus made the decision to kill everyone in the world since no one would have been born. – Nick Rolando Jan 10 '12 at 22:53
  • But a "day" to God is a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8), and Adam lived to be 930 years old. And men after, up until the flood, lived roughly that age, but not exceeded 1000 (to my knowledge). – Nick Rolando Jan 10 '12 at 22:57
  • Why is it fair when one person does drugs and their babies come out deformed? For such a child to live a happy life, they must learn to forgive the actions of their parents. That's reality. And when they find forgiveness in the Lord, it makes that much easier. We are forgiven so we can forgive. – Nick Rolando Jan 10 '12 at 22:59
  • thats another problem I find with God. He is Just/merciful/etc and yet he still causes serious life(talking about life on Earth) long pain because of no fault of their own. Either the Bible has got it wrong, or much much much less likely God doesn't exist. Seeing as the Bible was written by humans, who will have made mistakes let their personal opinion in, and sometimes just made things up I'm inclined to go with the former. – Jonathan. Jan 10 '12 at 23:04
  • That is not correct. God does not cause that to happen. It is the result of the decision that Adam and Eve made. If you are going to blame someone, blame them. God is not at fault. – Nick Rolando Jan 10 '12 at 23:27
  • Do you not think that the unfathomable God of the universe could not make His own book? – Nick Rolando Jan 10 '12 at 23:29
  • Who made Adam and Eve? who made it that the drugs a mother takes will effect her baby? And the Bible was written by humans by the people who's name are the name of the books. – Jonathan. Jan 11 '12 at 00:01
  • Who made you? By your understanding, it would be God's fault if you went and shot up a school? No, it would not. God gave you your own free will, just like A&E had theirs. That is the consequence of being born into a world of sin, death, and disease. Jesus came to free us from sin, and exampled this in healing diseases, illnesses, and raising people from the dead. To who wrote the bible: They were indeed men, men of God, influenced by the Holy Spirit. – Nick Rolando Jan 11 '12 at 00:15
  • I wonder if I should move all of these comments into the answer. – Nick Rolando Jan 11 '12 at 00:18
  • "God gave you your own free will" "To who wrote the bible: They were indeed men", you've just said yourself how the people who wrote the Bible had the ability to write what they want. No I don't think it would be my fault if I went and shot up a school. But it's not a baby's fault it will have problems because it's mother took drugs, is it? – Jonathan. Jan 11 '12 at 00:25
  • You misunderstood me. Men have free will. Men of God can be inspired by the Holy Spirit. These two things are not contradictions. You can think of being inspired by the Holy Spirit as a self willing act of asking God to motivate the things you do and say. This comes in relationship with God. – Nick Rolando Jan 11 '12 at 01:05
  • You don't think it would be your fault if you shot up a school? Seriously? What happened to your conscience? And I didn't say it was the baby's fault.. And I don't want to repeat myself. – Nick Rolando Jan 11 '12 at 01:12
  • Oh, no I don't think that!! I meant to say "No I don't think it would be God's fault if I went and shot up a school" (in other words it would be me fault). What I meant was, just because they were inspired by te holy spirit (which I agree, they were), doesn't mean they wouldn't have made mistakes or managed to avoid having their personal opinion leak into their writing... – Jonathan. Jan 11 '12 at 07:52
  • ...I was comparing the baby being born with defect because of the mothers action, to someone shooting up a school because of their own action, it's not the babies fault for what they have to live with but it is the shooters fault for what they have to live with. But with Baby it is Gods fault that he made us that a mothers body will pass toxins through to the baby, being God he could have made it so that it didn't – Jonathan. Jan 11 '12 at 08:13
  • @Jonathan, but then the sin would have no consequence and we could do whatever we want without worrying to take responsibility. That's why the toxins need to pass to the baby... – Grasper Sep 25 '15 at 13:38
3

I don't think He has punished every human for one's mistake.

I also don't believe that the world began with Adam and Eve, I think that is the way God used to explain how things worked at that time. And I believe on that based on the scripture when Caem was expelled from paradise and head to a village, if he was going to a village, who lived in this village based on the idea the world began with 2 persons?

Eva would have sex with her children?

A similar thought happens when Jesus said "kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed" NIV

As I'm a person that like to explain the Bible with science(not always, of course), the world got closer to something called Higgs Boson, also know as "God particle", read wiki for more information. Those CERN scientists are trying to find it a long time and, if I'm not mistaken, they got closer to finding it at december 2011. Imagine Jesus explaining it to some people ~2000 year ago, that would sound really weird.

And that is also the reason why Jesus gave all his lessons in parables so that everyone could understand it despite the time, future, past, present... a parable is the same thing forever everywhere.

Gerep
  • 517
  • 2
  • 12
  • 1
    Note: the name "God particle" comes from a book title, and is not the preferred nomenclature used by scientists in the field - it should not be overly confused with any religious connotation – Marc Gravell Jan 11 '12 at 20:24
  • @MarcGravell I know that but the idea is that this particle is the particle that generates everything that we know a particle that God created so things could exist...and it makes sense – Gerep Jan 11 '12 at 20:30
  • the Higgs Boson does not magically answer all particle physics questions - it is just another piece of a very complex puzzle. I understand the point you are trying to make (I think), but ... the importance shouldn't be over-stated (not under-stated). My main purpose for commenting, though, was to be clear that the crossover between the name "God particle" and this topic (Christianity) is largely arbitrary. – Marc Gravell Jan 11 '12 at 20:37
  • you are right Marc, it was just a point to think about and I also know that the boson will not magically answer questions..it will create more questions but will answer some and scientists finding it or not, I'll not doubt the fact that the is a God looking upon us... – Gerep Jan 11 '12 at 21:26
  • I think this is the best explanation, not to take it literally, and your reasoning (that people wouldn't have understood) is also good. However I do think God, knowing everything, including the future, would've realised that people would begin to question the Bible because it is too simply put. But this answer has only one problem (unless you can explain that?) compared to the others which have a few more. – Jonathan. Jan 12 '12 at 15:05
  • @Jonathan. hi...I think I don't understand your comment or you forgot to tell me what is the problem in my answer =] I"ll gladly try to explain it a bit more if this is the case, thanks for your comment – Gerep Jan 12 '12 at 15:09
  • By "However I do think God, knowing everything, including the future, would've realised that people would begin to question the Bible because it is too simply put", I meant God should have known that on day the parables would not be "satisfactory", in other words surely God should know that one day humans would be able to understand a more detailed explanation and would want one? – Jonathan. Jan 12 '12 at 15:18
  • @Jonathan. Well, I do believe that Jesus's parables are necessary, there is no need for more, parables don't open space for more then one interpretation...people may distort it but not change its interpretation – Gerep Jan 12 '12 at 15:34
2

It is incorrect to assume that God is punishing us, simply because of Adam & Eve's sin. Rather, the story of Adam and Eve teaches us how sin entered the world. Adam and Eve were created and, like children, were innocent. As the first people, their sin is the first sin to blemish this world (hence the term "original sin"). They were punished, but it forever marked the Earth, as well. At the beginning, as they were innocent, God protected them and provided all things for them (similar to how you raise a child). But when they freely chose to sin, they removed themselves from God's protection. The sin was a decision that they did not require God. And so they were left to fend for themselves. Hence our need to till the earth and so forth.

As we have free will, as they did, sin is something we all may choose. Original sin acknowledges that in this world, sin exists, and by being born in this world, we are born with the stain of the original sin. We are not culpable, and so are not condemned for it, but it is a mark on our soul by virtue of the fact that we were born out of this history, or if you want to look at it differently, born in this world with this separation from God evident.

Baptism removes the stain of original sin by repairing this separation. As we are born into this world with this separation, Baptism is a physical act of grace which brings us back into the family of God, and under His auspices. We may still sin, but it has returned us to this original innocence that Adam and Eve were formed in.

Read: THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (specifically VII. THE GRACE OF BAPTISM).

Ken Graham
  • 71,079
  • 6
  • 53
  • 173
Ben Richards
  • 1,879
  • 12
  • 19
  • You say they removed themselves from God's protection, like how a child grows up. Most parents would rather protect their children than themselves, or rather their children hated them than do nothing to protect them. So by that logic many humans are better people/beings than God. – Jonathan. Feb 01 '13 at 13:53
  • @Jonathan. Not quite. God has done everything short of forcing us against our own free will to bring us to Him. He even came to us in the flesh. He instituted the Church. God wants to protect us. But, like a child who refuses its mother's embrace and runs away, so can we. God has done everything He should. All that's left is for us to respond and accept it. That is a basic tenet of Christianity. – Ben Richards Feb 01 '13 at 18:37
2

Excellent question. It highlights apparent contradictions given God's attributes:

  • A Just God would not blame any human for the actions of another, especially given the action of one were not caused or influenced by the other. A Just God would also not burden humans by birth with a sinful nature either (as some have suggested) and instead would start us off with a clean slate allowing us to believe and live virtuously or choose to go the other way.

  • A Loving God would not indict or punish in a blanket manner.

  • An All Powerful God would not need to take human form for the express purpose of granting forgiveness of a sin committed generations ago by Adam and Eve. He could simply forgive without going through this exercise.

@James Black's discussion of Pelagianism is very interesting and provides some answers to the above conundrum. Those who are interested in a detailed discussion may follow James' links or this one: Pelagius.

An excerpt: "We are born characterless (non pleni), and with no bias towards good or evil (ut sine virtute, ita et sine vitio). It follows that we are uninjured by the sin of Adam, save in so far as the evil example of our predecessors misleads and influences us (non propagine sed exemplo). There is, in fact, no such thing as original sin, sin being a thing of will and not of nature; for if it could be of nature our sin would be chargeable on God the creator. This will, capable of good as of evil, being the natural endowment of man, is found in the heathen as well as in the Christian, and the heathen may therefore perfectly keep such law as they know."

Ken Graham
  • 71,079
  • 6
  • 53
  • 173
Probe Deeper
  • 257
  • 1
  • 7
1

Many answers were given, so if you get all the way here, I'll try to be brief.

First, Adam was punished because God is just. His justice is demonstrated by the fact that he punishes Adam and Eve. The guilty could not remain unpunished and God yet remain just.

Second, the holiness of God is on display here. Holiness cannot be in contact with unholiness.

Third, I could accuse God of being unjust to place on me the responsibility of one man's sin -- but I would then also have to correspondingly accuse God of giving(/offering) me the righteousness of Christ. The logic God applies in Eden is the same he applies at the cross. Either I accept both -- the guilty verdict He placed on me because of Adam, and the righteousness He gave because of Christ -- or I accept neither of them.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (ESV)

Elihu
  • 138
  • 1
  • 5
David Laberge
  • 2,963
  • 2
  • 26
  • 37
0

God freely bestowed has grace upon Adam and Eve. Thus, when they sinned, God did not commit an injustice by ceasing to bestow His sanctifying grace upon them. Adam and Eve committed a great injustice, the just punishment of which is Original Sin that everyone (except Jesus and Mary) are born with, whose effect is to incline us to sin (concupiscence).

Geremia
  • 39,167
  • 4
  • 47
  • 103
-2

God is love. God is also justice.

His Word never fails (Joshua 21:45). His promise was that "on the day you eat of it, you shall die." (Gen. 2:17) They ate. Their doom was sealed. Satan rejoiced.

If God forgave Adam & Eve, Satan could use that as precedent to insist on the same forgiveness. What God did was postpone the judgment. That's what MERCY is. Justice postponed. In the meantime, they could have kids. The clock ran out for Adam & Eve just before 1,000 years (Psalm 90:4).

But the kids were part of Adam & Eve, so they were under the same judgment and mercy. The clock was still ticking on the whole race of Adam & Eve.

God surprised Satan with this Messiah concept. Since Jesus was full human and full God, only humans could become one with Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension to heaven - not demons. Satan is furious and wishes to kill, corrupt and debase the humans while he has time left. Then he will take his time to torment the humans that join him in hell.

KorvinStarmast
  • 6,726
  • 6
  • 29
  • 42
Tim Temple
  • 23
  • 2
  • 1
    As a non-catholic I agree that the Pope's word does fail, however it doesn't add anything to your answer. – Greg Feb 04 '13 at 02:21