I tried to make short posts, but I guess I was unsuccessful, so here goes;
The importance of Adam and Eve may be better understood if we consider human beings created with the capabilities to grow in Godly attributes by obeying God’s commandments as exemplified by the Law.
The Gospel teaches us that all have sinned and have come short of the Glory of God. Sin is the transgression of the Law. This shows that even if we view the Law of God as intrinsic via a human attribute, in practice, human beings would comprehend the negation of an attribute (e.g. if a person committed murder, he would be understood as “without a lawful attribute”, i.e. a criminal). Such a negation may also be understood within a judgement of intent, and act, and the result is comprehension of error (e.g. a person unintentionally kills another human being). A judgement would also be required on a falsehood of a stated intent; for example, if the intent of such a person was to harmed another person, and then denies that intent, such a human would be “without a lawful attribute regarding deceit” by uttering a falsehood, and so on. So now we can discuss: (a) the attribute of a person who intended and acted correctly, as a “lawful attribute”; (b) a person did not intent, nor act, to harm another person, but if he did, an examination for other causes would be warranted, causing the growth of an unlawful attribute.
This would require a judgement, and consequently, keeping the Law is not an intrinsic aspect to a human. Although this argument appears negative, it nonetheless enables us to recognise the capacity for human beings to display an attribute of lawfulness and also of “without-lawfulness”. This attribute is based on the human characteristics of choice, intent, act, and judgment. These comments show that human beings are characterised, or comprehended, through acts, and these may be judged within intent, actualisation of that intent, and the nature of the act.
If we now appeal to the revealed will of God as Law, then our argument would imply that the law of God requires the growth of the attribute of lawfulness, but conversely as a result of the Law, the attribute of unlawfulness may also occur. This attribute is also a ‘communal attribute’ since it includes activity that impacts on other people. The command to ‘love God’, is the gift from God, stated as the gift from God’s Holy Spirit.
The fact that unhappiness, suffering, and death are found in the world makes it necessary to remove the cause of these things, which is sin, brought by the author of sin, the Devil, and removed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The law of God is so sacred, inviolate, and necessary for the salvation of humanity from sin, that the Son of God sacrificed his life to provide the forgiveness of sins.
Even though sin is attributed to Satan as the author of sin, it is nonetheless sin committed by mankind. In a poetic setting, the fall of Satan is described as a transformation of a being through his own will, and this transformation is initially passive, commencing with pride and vanity, (Lucifer conceives himself as being greater, or other than what he is). The transformation is completed through an act, or force of will, in activity towards his kind (war with other angels) and involves the community of angels. This analogy is intended to show that will, freedom, and choice, cannot affect God, but have an effect on the community. The destructive aspects of reason is considered to arise from a passive state, in that a human being is capable of reasoning contrary to God’s will, and also from an active state, in that a human being would use his reason, and life, to plan and execute actions that he knows will bring harm to others.
We cannot discuss freedom when dealing with salvation, without asking the question, “What is freedom?” It may be inferred that freedom within a completely determined world be considered an act of will, so that a passive person is transformed into an active one through reason, and in this way attain to freedom by becoming part of the pre-determined world. Although an act of will may be consistent with choice, the inference in this view is that freedom can be considered within a completely determined world. Such a view is difficult to reconcile with choice in the world, change, chance, and uncertainty found in the world (particularly that of human choice and the ability to interfere with other people’s activity, and also interfere with natural activity). Does this mean that freedom cannot be equated with choice? I have stated elsewhere that reflecting on the elements of faith is an act of freedom; thus I have inferred that freedom is all pervasive when discussing salvation. The plurality of human attributes provides a range of possibilities, and with that a human introduces uncertainty; this denies a pre-determined world to human reality (but NOT to God). It also recognises the capacity to err, which is identical in religious terminology with sin; this is consistent with separation of human beings by sin from the one-ness of Godly attributes. Other theories may argue that freedom is choice of self, or the inevitability to choose one-self as a facticity of freedom in the being of the world. However, this discussion differs radically from such theories in that a human created in the image of God is in the world (not of the world); nor do we accept that consciousness or the being of consciousness emerges (or arises) in the world through a type of nihilism of in-itself. Human reality, in that it cannot be considered within a pre-determined world, is faced with chance, possibilities, and outcomes that are often such that a human being would wish to choose otherwise, after a conscious choice had been made. This is another way of stating that a human being is in the world and that he considers the external world of sense as being reasonable. Additionally, even though a human being were to believe he had made a particular choice, the specific outcome may be contrary to what that person initially understood should have been an outcome of such a choice. The causality that a human being believed was correct, may in fact prove otherwise for a particular choice and act, resulting in an illusion of choosing correctly, but actualising as other-than the intended choice.
When comprehending error, a human being may confer ‘regret’ or ‘judgement of self’ after such an experience – this judgement of self may be self-reflective, and grounded on freedom; the person knows and believes that he is able, or is enabled as a result of freedom, to reflect on the intent and act even after a choice and act have actualised in the world. This freedom and reflectance has brought an acceptance (or responsibility) of the result, even though the person in question may have concluded he had not ‘intended’ what has actualised, i.e. he may regret the deed, may question the intent, reflect on the nature of his intent, or conclude that he is ignorant of the act even if he understood his intent (e.g. it may have occurred accidentally). Conversely, when intent, choice, and act are correct, and error is not observed, an ‘equal judgement of self’ occurs and this judgement within freedom is both to reflect on a one-ness of intent and act (goodness is understood within freedom), and also ‘know’ that it may have been otherwise. In this way, a human through an active ‘experiences’ its freedom within goodness, and also within repentance. Finally, a person who intentionally acted with evil intent also may conclude that the intent actualised in the act, and judges his act as evil. This further emphasises that freedom is the ground of a human being.
These are the attributes, and acts, that form the multiple possibilities of humanity. God created the universe and humanity, so as human beings, we can only believe that it is all according to God’s will, as the Creator. We otoh are limited in our understanding and need to be taught, and as result grow in Godly attributes – that is our predetermined freedom.