tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3188299275302168183..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Till death do us part?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48403957619031501022011-01-09T20:03:38.106-05:002011-01-09T20:03:38.106-05:00At the risk of inciting "giddiness" on t...At the risk of inciting "giddiness" on the less than platonic side- we have John Calvin speculating:<br /><br />And hence is refitted the error of some, who think that the woman was formed only for the sake of propagation, and who restrict the word “good,” which had been lately mentioned, to the production of offspring... and that Adam was hitherto free from lust.<br /><br />http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.viii.i.html<br /><br />And from my post-<br />http://vanberean.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Kreeft could use a little giddiness.Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32176070930253233342011-01-07T07:14:17.105-05:002011-01-07T07:14:17.105-05:00Peter said...
There could have been billions of pe...Peter said...<br /><i>There could have been billions of people in the Garden (there weren't, mind you) and Adam's sin would have affected all of humanity due to his "office" (for lack of a better word) as a representative for all of man.</i><br /><br />I take it then that you subscribe to creationism rather than traducianism. I lean toward that position too. Though there are good arguments for the latter position. But if creationism is true, and Adam Fell when there were (say) 100 descendants, then while all would become guilty, not all would inherit a nature that had a bent toward sin. Those born after the Fall would, while those born before the Fall wouldn't, right?ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64262494168025356312011-01-06T17:18:40.296-05:002011-01-06T17:18:40.296-05:00Ekklesia said:
---
Rhology, another thought though...Ekklesia said:<br />---<br />Rhology, another thought though - if Adam and Eve had procreated prior to the fall, that raises a plethora of theological issues.<br /><br />Such as; Where there other sinless humans other than Adam and Eve, prior to Jesus? or Would God have expelled everyone from the Garden if the first sin was restricted to Adam and Eve alone?<br /><br />Contemplating the possibility of procreation before the fall is messy I think.<br />---<br /><br />That's not at all messy if one understands Federal Headship. There could have been billions of people in the Garden (there weren't, mind you) and Adam's sin would have affected all of humanity due to his "office" (for lack of a better word) as a representative for all of man.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72854821129387532882011-01-06T15:41:58.348-05:002011-01-06T15:41:58.348-05:00Messy like all of life is?
I don't see much o...Messy like all of life is? <br />I don't see much of a problem.<br />No there weren't others. You don't have kids every time you have relations.<br />Adam qua federal head would, by "virtue" of his fall, would've meant all the humans would be expelled from Eden, I should think.<br /><br />And you're right - no way to know one way or th'other. I was just pointing out that you don't know either. :-)Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55371965477314142452011-01-06T15:15:40.821-05:002011-01-06T15:15:40.821-05:00Steve said: "The possibilities are limitless....Steve said: <b>"The possibilities are limitless."</b><br /><br />Indeed, but the issue is really whether or not the mandate to multiply would be carnal without sin.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78697474603062619622011-01-06T15:05:24.595-05:002011-01-06T15:05:24.595-05:00EKK,
The creation mandate was given before the fa...EKK,<br /><br />The creation mandate was given before the fall, be fruitful and multiply. Furthermore, part of the curse was "pain in childbirth will be greatly multiplied."Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7694922695684673732011-01-06T14:58:38.024-05:002011-01-06T14:58:38.024-05:00ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
"You correctly ask would they...ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:<br /><br />"You correctly ask would they have procreated had they not sinned? That's a good question. I'd add, if so, How? Up to that point God was in the Garden with Adam, and Eve. Could His mere presence have provided some other avenue of procreation?"<br /><br />Perhaps, had they not fallen, they would have mated like Coneheads, by honing their cones. Gyneconics. The possibilities are limitless.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70361895216318025082011-01-06T13:44:37.619-05:002011-01-06T13:44:37.619-05:00Rhology, another thought though - if Adam and Eve ...Rhology, another thought though - if Adam and Eve had procreated prior to the fall, that raises a plethora of theological issues.<br /><br />Such as; <i>Where there other sinless humans other than Adam and Eve, prior to Jesus?</i> or <i>Would God have expelled everyone from the Garden if the first sin was restricted to Adam and Eve alone?</i><br /><br />Contemplating the possibility of procreation before the fall is messy I think.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21572220510415067122011-01-06T13:33:52.317-05:002011-01-06T13:33:52.317-05:00Rhology said: "You don't know that Adam a...Rhology said: <b>"You don't know that Adam and Eve had relations only after the Fall. That's when it gets mentioned, but that's a mere argument from silence."</b><br /><br />Yes, you're right. That's true. <br /><br />Steve also points out that <b>[Gen 1:22]</b> happens before the fall.<br /><br />Even so, much of this <b>is</b> speculation. My reading of Genesis has Adam "knowing" his wife in <b>[Gen 4:1]</b> as the first successful instance of <b>[Gen 1:22]</b>.<br /><br />It's not certain, as you point out, but its not unreasonable either.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8754667135723025112011-01-06T13:27:03.099-05:002011-01-06T13:27:03.099-05:00At the present time, there are sinful polygynous, ...At the present time, there are sinful polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, and polygamous relationships. Under the New Covenant polygamous relationships are forbidden (with the possible exception of someone (only a man?) who leaves paganism/heathenism and enters the Christian life with existing multiple spousal relationships and children from them).<br /><br />I don't see polygamous marriage as necessarily sinful under the Old Covenant. Some have said it was a concession on God's part. Other that it was with God's positive approval. Though, clearly under the New Covenant, we should only promote monogamous marriages. But will there be polygamous marriages in heaven? It would seem unlikely since we will remain under the New Covenant.<br /><br />Here's a hypothetical scenario of monogamous marital relationships in the final state.<br /><br />What if Arnold married Amy. After Amy died, Arnold married Barbara. But when Arnold died, Barbara married Benny. Eventually both died (doesn't matter who first, but the one left didn't remarry).<br /><br />Now, in the resurrection, are Barbara and Benny still married? What about Arnold? Is he not married to anyone any more because 1. the marriage with Amy was dissolved when he married Barbara after she (Amy) died; and 2. his marriage with Barbara was dissolved when she (Barbara) married Benny when he (Arnold) died? So, Barbara gets to be married in the eternal state, but not Arnold?<br /><br />I suppose Arnold can marry someone else. Maybe someone who never married on earth. But what if he really loved Amy? Can he remarry Amy because his marriage with Barbara was dissolved when he died? Or what if Arnold and Barbara loved each other the most and best? Is Barbara stuck with Benny, even though her heart loves Arnold more?<br /><br />Maybe the main thing that led to Barbara marrying Benny was out of financial need as a widow who had children to feed. Maybe, IF she had KNOWN that if she never remarried and died in that state and would eventually be reunited with Arnold for all eternity, then she might have never even considered marrying Benny. Yet, Scripture didn't give her enough information about the eternal state to give her an informed decision. Would God do that? Again, God is free to do things counter to our expectations. <br /><br />Another question: Does Isa. 56:3ff have any bearing on the eternal state?<br /><br />Isa. 56:3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from His people." Nor let the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."<br />4 For thus says the LORD, "To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant,<br />5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86211444425251352402011-01-06T13:22:59.212-05:002011-01-06T13:22:59.212-05:00ekk,
You don't know that Adam and Eve had rel...ekk,<br /><br />You don't know that Adam and Eve had relations only after the Fall. That's when it gets mentioned, but that's a mere argument from silence.<br />It's right along with all the other questions in the vein of: What did A & E do in the Garden? How long before Satan tempted them? Did they fall after his first attempt or were there other attempts before that? Etc.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38426853526267132992011-01-06T13:22:39.194-05:002011-01-06T13:22:39.194-05:00Annoyed Pinoy, I take Jesus' words about marri...Annoyed Pinoy, I take Jesus' words about marriage in heaven to mean simply that <b>once united with God, all other relationships will be insignificant in comparison</b>.<br /><br />I do take Steve's point though, that His comments may have been restricted to the Levitical provision of marriage.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51189997203051464262011-01-06T13:10:41.510-05:002011-01-06T13:10:41.510-05:00I hope there will be marriage after the resurrecti...I hope there will be marriage after the resurrection. Many married people have said that it doesn't make sense to them that God would have them foster a deep and intimate relationship with another person in marriage and then abruptly end it upon death such that their future relationship will amount to being a brother-and-sister-like relationship in the eternal state. Nevertheless, God is free to do things counter to our expectations.<br /><br />One of numerous possible interpretations of Gen. 6 is that the "sons of God" were fallen angels 1. who demonically possessed human beings Or 2. who impregnated human women by use of their supernatural bodies. With respect to option 2, maybe angelic substance is like physical substance but just in another "dimension" (for lack of a better word) rather than being "non-physical" and spirit like God is spirit. Maybe by "nature" (or in this case, by "supernature") they have sex organs. Moreover, there have been claims (even by professing Christians) of angelic visitations or appearances of female looking angels. Of course, some or all of such cases could be demonic since nowhere in Scripture are angels portrayed as female, but always as male. <br /><br />Maybe angels have "promiscuous" sexual relations with each other and it's not forbidden by God because they are fixed in their moral purity. Human marriage might be an ordinance or institution of God because of a fallen world and all it entails. If so, maybe something similar is the case with regard to the sexual relationships of the saints in heaven. Maybe this is what Jesus was alluding to when He said "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, <b>but are like angels in heaven</b>." I don't know. I'm just speculating. <br /><br />An obvious problem would be if a potential sexual partner were a relative of some sort (say, descendant or ancestor like in Robert Heinlein's novel "Time Enough For Love"). Nevertheless, the suggestion of promiscuous sex among the saints in heaven doesn't seem to make sense. Especially in light of how we Christians have criticized Muslim theology for inconsistency and hypocrisy when Muslim men abstain from fornication and then martyr themselves in order to obtain 40 houries in paradise for sexual gratification. In keeping with that kind of reasoning, it follows that homosexual relationships will continue to be forbidden in the final state since while polygamous marriages were acceptable to God prior to the Mosaic Covenant, homosexual activity was abominable to God in every age/dispensation/administration. Sex between redeemed humans and angels would likely be forbidden after the resurrection too if this particular interpretation of Gen. 6 is correct (cf. Jude 1:6-7). Besides, the Mosaic Covenant taught the principle of not mating two different species.<br /><br />Continued in next post:ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48934919779389908802011-01-06T13:03:41.799-05:002011-01-06T13:03:41.799-05:00There are a couple of other observations here, Ste...There are a couple of other observations here, Steve that may or may not help.<br /><br />1. Adam and Eve first procreated (in a carnal sense) only after their sin. You correctly ask <b>would they have procreated had they not sinned?</b><br /><br />That's a good question. I'd add, if so, How?<br /><br />Up to that point God was in the Garden with Adam, and Eve. Could His mere presence have provided some other avenue of procreation? Until that point only Adam and Eve had been created, and neither in a traditional sense. Was that because God could, or because they were the first two?<br /><br />2. From verses such as <b>[Isa 54:4-5]</b> we can see that God represents His relationship to His people as a marriage. Although, it is a metaphor, it is important to realize that the <i>'signifier'</i> is <b>His relationship to us</b>, and the <i>'signified'</i> is <b>marriage itself</b>.<br /><br />This means that our marriage, our husband/wife relationships, are modeled on our relationships to God.<br /><br />3. In resurrection, our relationship to God, though fundamentally truer, more perfect, will substantially not change, save in perfection only.<br /><br />Looking at verses such as <b>[Gen 2:24][1 Cor 6:16][Matt 19:5-6][Mark 10:8]</b> and <b>[Eph 5:31]</b> we see that the husband/wife marriage relationship is seen as <b>one flesh</b> (where <b>one</b> in Hebrew was absolutely indivisible). What isn't so obvious is that the husband/wife marriage relationship is also seen to be <b>one spirit</b> according to <b>[Mal 2:15]</b>.<br /><br />It is this <b>one spirit</b> component that is modeled on our relationship to God <b>[Eph 4:3][Phil 1:27]</b>.<br /><br />So what will marriage look like in resurrection?<br /><br />I expect, something like a candle beside the sun (from verses such as): <b>[1 Cor 10:17, 12:12-14, 20, 25][Eph 2:16]</b> and <b>[Col 3:15]</b>.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.com