TSIBHOD,
I'll say that Adam was "innocent." I used the wrong word in "pure."
I considered the notion of innocence when verbally discussing the issue recently with my father, who proposed the idea. My response to him was, in effect, as follows:
"Spiritual truth is not that which is merely technically true, but that which glorifies God, and builds up His Body in the process. That is, there must be a utility in this regard.
There is no utility in the things of the Lord in this regard in labeling Adam as “innocent”, for innocence in the things of the Lord requires more than technical conformity such as Adam's having not transgressed a commandment, but life, and power, and conformity to God.
As such then, Adam, by derivation, was, although innocent of willful transgression, nevertheless guilty of existing as an "I am" external to the great "I AM".
This of course was irresistible, given that he had no choice is his being created. And it is why Romans 8 tells us that the creature (the non-creator) was made subject to vanity "not willingly" (Ro 8:20). It is vanity which was his guilt - a guilt of state.
For the whole creation was not an experiment to see whether it would work, nor even was it an experiment to prove it would not work (for to whom else would it be proven except to Him who was there before it began?), but a performance and demonstration of the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ. This is why He was slain from the foundation of the world: it was Christ Jesus who was to be glorified.
And the mechanism used to effect such was the separation of His body (the Bride) from Himself, by His Father, so that the suffering He was to endure, would be endured "for the joy that was set before Him": the winning back of her whom He loved with an everlasting love. God would mold His Son through the suffering that was necessary to win back her who was separated from Him ... for a season.
And that is the reason for all that exists: the Father's glorification in Christ Jesus, and the joy and satisfaction of the Bride and Groom exulted. Amen.
"who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross" Heb 12:2
"though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered" Heb 5:8
Adam was sinless until he wanted to sin.
Two issues:
1: Sin: Adam was in a state of sin (typed in his being made physically naked), and as outlined above. This I have called unratified sin. It is unratified because, just as one must learn theory and practice in life, just as one must not only say "I love you", but demonstrate it, just as we are not just spirit, but body also, so too the spiritual state of sin (that which implies another "I AM"), must be ratified in demonstrating itself: an act opposing the "I AM".
2: Philisophical discordance: 'not wanting' cannot not transform itself to 'wanting': there must be an external to impose a complete discontinuance of the first state, and a replacement of it by the second. But in that case, what were the use of the first brief 'visit'?
The case is therefore, that the first never existed. Adam's sin was asleep and had to be "revived" by the directing of God's commandment toward it, for as 1 Cor 15 tells us, "the strength of sin is the law".
Also, John the Baptist was "a little lower than the angels," and he was called an "angel" in Greek in the NT.
There is in fact a problem with going to the Greek: God gave us the scripture in a translated form faithfully delivered in the 17th century, and the renderings offered us of each word were overseen by the Holy Spirit as the 'line of best fit'.
There are many who look at the Greek , and obtain a less-usual rendering of words to suit their thrust. Although such renderings are technically possible, they are not contextually, or spiritually correct. We can do the same in English. For example, I can use the word “anarchy” to mean definition 4 in Webster's College Dictionary to mean "the union of order with the absence of coercive means", but this would be misrepresentative of one's words who had just used the term in a speech to mean "chaos", as is usually understood from the word "anarchy".
The Holy Spirit, in delivering the scripture to us in English translation, did so as a sovereign God in such a way that was sufficient for the purposes of the Spirit.
The Greek is therefore useful in so much as it makes more beautiful (amplifies) what has been provided in English (eg: the multiple words for "love"). However it should not be used to drive eccentric meaning.
The thrust of scripture is that man was indeed made lower than the angels. It were therefore highly discordant of Him who wrote such words to reverse this order when supposedly addressing Adam, hundreds of years after his demise, in calling of him "Cherub".
The text of Ez 28 is far more readily applicable to Satan, than to Adam, for many reasons. One is that just stated. There are others.
And there is an important other: God is not a spiteful God, not given to holding grudges. The thrust of the story of Eden was sorrow, and God faithfully dressed his ‘fallen’ in clothing like the beautiful Gentleman that He is. There was no spite or ‘getting back’, no winging, no resentment. To suggest that many centuries later the Lord finally decided to ‘let it all out’ and ‘tick Adam off’, is inconsistent with Who He is: He just doesn’t, and doesn’t have to, operate that way. For He is God.
(Concerning your quoting of those writers ‘sensitive to God’, and my assertion that such appeal is redundant.)
If you're just going to scorn these people, then that's your loss.
No-one is scorning anyone. What you must learn in theological debate is that it is redundant to appeal to 'expert witness'. If what you have to say has merit, then it should stand on its own. If you feel the need to quote numbers, or refer to your self-considered quality of those numbers, as support, then your case is weakened. Nobody is convinced of another’s position by being told that there are others ‘close to God’ who think the same. All spiritual truth must be received through the Spirit, directly, for it must constitute Jesus Christ to the recipient, who is Himself the Truth.
That some such as Calvin and Spurgeon have received a name respected, does not entitled them to be listened to any more than the beggar who loves Jesus on the street. For respect is always achieved after the fact. Which is why Paul was conscious of the constraint upon him every minute, hence: “that after preaching to others, I myself might not be disqualified”.
We run the race alone with God.
Praise God for Adam's disobedience, for without it, we would have never known Jesus.
I know, Adam was so exemplary of how sin brings us closer to God! After all, Jesus said that those who had sinned the most would be those who loved Him the most, because they had had the most sins forgiven. Thank God that we can sin, so that we can know Him more! And thank God that Adam sinned, for without sin, we couldn't know God at all! Yay!
And this is why it was made to happen that way. As I have outlined above. It was caused by God.
Why is this so philosophically? Because only God can glorify God. It begins and ends with Him.
God bless.
