Elderone said:
I'm not sure I can agree with that. Although God know before time His creation would sin, It is my opinion Adam and Eve had true free will, were tempted and fell. I base that on the following:
Ge 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Not just good but very good.
Original sin, or the sin nature, was not introduced into the world until after Adam & Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I most assuredly agree that original sin and the imputing of a sin nature to Adam occured at the Fall; however, I further observe that Adam's nature must have been inherently sinful even before the Fall, but because he had not yet sinned, it would have been unrighteous to impute sin before it had manifested itself. Considering this point, it might sound like a semantical argument, but I assure you that my intention is really to improve the consistency of the Calvinist view of human nature. The view that Adam was some kind of super-man that was mystically capable of resisting sin of his own power is inconsistent.
If you will, I would elaborate the conclusion I have reached.
Indeed God's creation was (very) good:
(Job 37:16 KJV) Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?
(Ps. 40:5 KJV) Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.
However, it is God's
act of creation that is perfect, not the creation proper. Observe here the wise words of Solomon (ostensibly, we really don't know who wrote Ecclesiastes) wherein he imputes all things righteous to the hand of God:
(Ecc. 9:1 KJV) For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.
Moreover, he continues by decrying all of creation as evil:
(Ecc. 9:3 KJV)
This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
I hear in my mind a small voice leveling the hypothetical argument that Solomon's verses apply to a post-Fall world; however, it is inconsistent to assume this because the Word does not discriminate between Adam's nature and man's nature. Indeed, the example of Adam's fall is the example we have that man is a cursed creation, for his heart is purely evil (Gen. 6:5, Job 15:14-16; 25:4-6, Ps. 10:4-6; 14:1-3, 51:3-5; 58:3-5; 139:16, Prov. 16:2; 20:9, Ecc. 3:16; 7:20; 8:11, et cetera). Unless substantive scriptural proof can be shown that Adam's
nature (not his walk, which was appointed according to God: Prov. 20:24) was somehow effectively different before the Fall than after, then the Scriptures are all applicable to him.
Let us examine the transaction that imputed original sin, so as not to confuse the events in the garden.
The key to understanding the dynamic of original sin and the Fall is using typological hermeneutic exegesis. To put it simply, we have to look at the symbolism used to describe the events in the garden of Eden and then relate these symbols to other passages in Scripture to see what they mean. The account of Genesis is very symbolical, just as most prophecies are. Let us look at some key verses from the account:
(Gen. 2:9 KJV) And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
(Gen. 2:17 KJV) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
(Gen. 2:25 KJV) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Let's look at the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in ii. 9, 17. What is the significance of the tree? Why is the descriptive moniker "of Knowledge of Good and Evil"? What does that mean?
I think the answers are fairly simple when factored into the overall theory. The tree symbolizes
true knowledge of good and evil. We know this knowledge by the name
conscience:
(John 8:9 KJV) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
The summary point would be that Adam had no convictions either way regarding good and evil. That is, he was totally innocent. I do not mean only that he was "not guilty," but even more, no charge could be brought against him. If he had been accused of sin, his response would have been to the effect of, "What's sin?" The opposite is necessarily true as well: "What's righteousness?"
We can explain this through an easy philosophical argument.
The premises: God is perfect, man is imperfect.
The conclusion: God, because he is perfection, necessarily requires perfection for justification. (This is precisely why Jesus had to be sacrificed.) Man, being imperfect, is totally incapable of meeting the requirements for justification on his own. (This is true of Adam, who was just as imperfect as we are, this being evidenced by his fall. A perfect being would not have sinned.)
The logical and necessary result is that Adam, being imperfect, cannot be considered capable of not sinning because he was incapable of perfection.
I have often heard the argument that Adam was perfect until he sinned and then he became imperfect. This is true as relates to blamelessness. But then the idea is extrapolated out of its logical bounds. It is said that someone can do something perfect, but that if one does something imperfect, then they are imperfect. This is flawed. An imperfect being cannot do anything perfect. It would be contradictory to its nature.
(Prov. 16:2 KJV) All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
(Ecc. 1:15 KJV) That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.
(Jer. 13:23 KJV) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
More striking illustrations can be found in: can white be black? can light be darkness? can left be right? No, none of these things can ever be the other. It is contradictory to their nature.
As Reformed thinkers, we can certainly affirm this because the principle is ever applied to salvation, especially in the words of the apostle John:
(1 John 2:19 KJV) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Unbelievers, being devoid of justification by faith will necessarily fall and depart from the church, having no real identity with it. This is contrasted with believers who persevere, being perfected in Christ:
(1 John 3:7-8 KJV)
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Those that are in Christ are righteous and commit no further sins (all of our sins have been atoned by Christ's sacrifice, so they are no longer imputed to us). Those who live in sin (that is, are dead by sin) are unrighteous and continue in sin all their days. Without the regenerative powers of the Holy Spirit, they will never be capable of righteousness. We see then, a contrast between the two natures: the nature of man and the nature of God. We know that righteousness comes by God alone.
(Romans 8:5 KJV) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
(Phil. 2:13 KJV) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
(James 1:17 KJV) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
And how much more can these never do works of righteousness sufficient to claim the kingdom.
(Titus 3:5 KJV) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Having thus established that Adam's nature was no different from our own we are able to proceed to how the symbolism of the Fall relates to the doctrine of original sin. Adam's guilt in the fall was not simply pride, as it is commonly classified, but also of failing to trust in God, even idolatry. Let's look at it again. Most of our indication to the nature of the sin comes from the discussion between Eve and the serpent.
(Gen. 3:1-6 KJV) Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2) And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4) And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
In v. 6 wee see that Eve saw the tree "desired to make one wise." This relates back to v. 5 where the devil tempts her with the prospect of deification ("ye shall be as gods"). Eve forsook her trust in God as the only true God and idolized the tree for its potential to glorify her in as a deity. We should also not overlook that Eve tells a lie here in v. 3. God did not say that touching the fruit would result in death, only eating it.
The overall theme of the sin here is apostasy, which the Scriptures relate as a "falling away." That the Fall is termed "the Fall" is symbolic of this. Furthermore, this naturally requires an infralapsarian view of God's plan. If Adam had been justified by faith all along, then his sin here could have been covered by faith. Instead, Adam was damned under the covenant of works, which required perfection. That covenant first had to be violated before he could be justified through renewed faith by the covenant of grace and subsequent redemption.
We further see how the Fall, by imputing to Adam conscience and conviction for his sinfulness, condemns him for his inherent evil.
(Gen. 3:7 KJV) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
(Gen. 3:11 KJV) And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
(Gen. 3:22 KJV) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
In ii. 25, Adam and Eve are said to both be naked, but unashamed. We see a stark contrast in iii. 7, where their eyes are opened and they see their nakedness. You see, they were always naked, but they were not always aware of their nudity. The symbolism here is that they were always sinful creatures, but they never understood or knew that. Furthermore, they show evidence of their understanding in v. 11. In v. 22, God says that man has now become like "us." The meaning of us here could apply in two ways. In the first, it could apply to the Trinity, the Father speaking to himself, the Son, and the Spirit. It could also apply to the heavenly host: God and his angels. In any case, I think that what is being expressed here is that man became a rational, moral being, capable of understanding right from wrong and thereby coming to cognizance of his inherent sinfulness.
The most important thing to take away is that man had to be inherently sinful in order to fall in the first place. The same is true for the angels. This conclusion is required by logic: perfect beings cannot do anything imperfect and vice versa.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon
