Philosophical ramblings on the Adam & Eve Parable

The story of the Fall was a way of explaining the discrepancy between the real and the ideal.

There is some writing from the past which suggests a rather puzzling account of the period before the Fall. Take a look at this: John Winthrop, 1630 (Winthrop was a Calvinist).There are, then, 2 laws: "The law of nature" and the "law of grace."The law of nature is the original covenant between God and Man apparently ("given to man in the estate of innocence") and coresponds, I believe, to the Calvinist "Covenant of Works." The second law is the Covenant of Grace (Christ's sacrifice).There is a lot to be said about this text, but I wanted to point out the puzzling part. Adam and Eve, the Bible suggests, did not know good and evil. However, according to this text they had a set of rules called the "law of nature"--which sounds like something innate. They had a moral system and, not only that, this system is still in some sense operable. It's puzzling, as I say, but does suggest that this innocent state is more complicated than it might seem--at least according to the Calvinists.ed. spellingThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-24-2005 06:14 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-24-2005 06:16 PM

To follow up on this idea that the state of innocence might have been a little more complicated than it seems--as least if we go by that 17th century text I cited--one might propose a little theory:Adam and Eve had a moral system, a stripped down one consisting of one negative rule--do not eat that particular fruit. Nonetheless, this is spoken of by Winthrop as something still operable, which he associates with "Justice." He associates "Mercy" with the Covenant of Grace.We understand that the Covenant of Works was and is as hard as nails. If you break it once, it's broken forever. The Covenant of Grace does not operate in that fashion. So we can see how Winthrop would associate the concept of Justice with the original covenant.But the original Covenant said not to eat a particular fruit. It didn't mention any other rules. Nonetheless, Winthrop calls it the "Law of Nature." What could this mean?Could it be that the Covenant of Works embodies a paradox about the relationship between God and morality--the question of whether or not an act is good or bad because God says it is, or is good or bad in and of itself, apart from what God thinks? Because with the injunction not to eat the fruit, we have apparently a rule that is correct only because God said so, not because eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is in itself evil.And so, if we accept this, what is written in our hearts as the Law of Nature is the injunction that that which is good is good because God said it is, at least according to the original covenant.

That's the problem. You never can tell. But reading through Carico's posts might yield a clue.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-13-2005 08:52 PM

---

"And from water we made all living things."-- The Quran

I know the story, jaywill. I was trying to make a further point.I never saw or heard that word "Satanified" before. How is it pronounced? I suppose the accent is on the second "a"? If so, "Satanified" would rhyme with "Sudanified" (somebody who has lived and grown accustomed to the country of Sudan).This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-13-2005 08:53 PM

---

"And from water we made all living things."-- The Quran

Hey, Parasomnium, my wife has heard me talking about my "Dutch friend," and she's here now and was looking at your avator, and said, "That's your Dutch friend?!"Pretty funny. I had to explain that that's your pin-up girl or something.She wants to know what you think of Andre Rieu (spelling probably wrong). He's a big hit on PBS (Public broadcasting in USA).He's coming to our fair city in April.