The existence of sin

[Jon_]

(Rom 5:12 KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(Rom 5:13 KJV) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

If I read correctly here, Paul is saying that sin has always persisted in the world. That is, before Adam and Eve's transgression of the consumption of the fruit, they might have been sinning, though they were not breaking the law (to not eat of the fruit), so sin was not imputed to them. So then, the dire transgression of Adam's violation of the only commandment he had to uphold is all the more magnified.

Let us look upon this more deeply. Prior to Adam's sin, mankind was blameless because he did not have the law. Since sin is blameworthy, we can conclude that he did not sin (commit offense against God). But did Adam commit sinful acts according to the law that we now persist under? Could Adam have lied to Eve about things and this dishonesty been passed over by God? Could Adam have been stuffed up with pride and this not imputed to him as unrighteous? We know that pride caused Adam's fall, but was not the sin the eating of the fruit and not pride itself? Just as it is written, "Pride cometh before a fall," but there was only one thing to which Adam could have fallen to in pride.

After Adam's transgression, all of mankind became fallen, not because anything of the nature of man changed, but because as an offender of one part of the law, he became an offender of it all. That is, until Adam's sin, he was not held in the law (he did not have the knowledge of good and evil), after that, the knowledge was bequethed to mankind and all its devistating consequences.

The natural conclusion is that we were created as creatures disposed to "sin," but by God's grace, we were not considered sinful before the breaking of the covenant of the tree. Essentially, we would have been created damned if God had created man thus as he had into the law. But God did not create us as sinful, for there was no law over man but the one commandment. In the violation of this commandment, we became offenders to the entire law, which was then made known to us by the fruit of the tree.

This is why mankind is totally depraved. We were born with the propensity to sin. We were created with the propensity to sin, but sin was not imputed unto the creation by God, for there was no law. This then, is the absolution of God from the responsibility of the fall. His grace was so great that he withheld his law for he knew his creation incapable of upholding it. When you consider the righteousness of God, it is only apparent that this is the only explanation for Adam's perfect state before the fall. God's creation can never meet his righteousness.

That Lucifer and one third of the host fell is evidence of this. God allowed them to become hardened (drew back his grace from them) according to his good and pleasing will. We do not know if they fell according to a law because we know very little of the dynamics between God and his angels. It seems entirely logical that the host of angels should be likewise predestined and reprobate just as mankind is. The minions of evil would be the obvious reprobate: those that God has not held within his grace; and the heavenly host would be the predestined: those that God has held within his grace.

We can further logically conclude that the only course of the prefection of mankind is the total freedom from the law. Through Christ we are made free from the bondage of sin. At the close of the world, after the judgment is commenced, it seems plausible that God should abolish his law. The other possibility would be that he openly extends his grace so that we no longer transgress against it. In consideration, these are really the same thing. Whether God restrains transgression against the law, or abolishes it altogether, the result is identical.

Or is it?

What if the law were God's nature? That is, the knowledge of God's righteousness. What if sin were the committing of acts contradictory to the nature of God? This seems very basic on the surface, but consider the profound differences in nature of us and God. It would seem an utter impossibility to be like God. Even through his grace could we really conform to his nature? That is not a question of God's omnipotence, but a question of his character. Is God able to perfect mankind unto his own nature? Is God able to make us gods? (We now see some of the thought process of the heresy of the Mormons, perhaps.)

I thought I knew where I was going with this, but now I'm not so sure. The more I think on it, the more complex it seems. This is no surprise, though. The things of God are too wonderful for me, as the Psalmist wrote. There is much to be learned of our nature here, though.

What does my brethren think on this?

 

[reformedfan]

yeah he did have a law: Gen 2:17. When Eve broke it, nothing happened. When Adam broke it, sin entered the world.

He did have the knowledge of good: God dwelt with him.

Sin isn't imputed to God in the fall because 1. He told them not to do it, 2. He gave them a conscience 3. He gave them true knowledge, holiness & righteousness which would enable them to keep the law perfectly. The sinned anyway, not God's fault, He had done literally everything to prevent sin but stand there & babysit the tree.

There is at least one instance in the OT before the actual giving of the law of Israel keeping the Sabbath- in the gathering of Manna before Ex. 20, in the creation order, etc. They were clearly "under the law" though it had not yet been formally given.
Tired. Late. Dunno if that answered your desire for a lawless utopia or not

 

[Jon_]

yeah he did have a law: Gen 2:17. When Eve broke it, nothing happened. When Adam broke it, sin entered the world.

Mmm, this contradicts what Paul writes to Timothy:

(1Ti 2:14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

They were both equal offenders of the commandment. You are looking at the event anachronistically. Punishment did not come until God found them hiding in the garden, but consequence came simultaneously:

(Gen 3:7) 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.

He did have the knowledge of good: God dwelt with him.

That is no basis for establishing Adam's knowledge of good and evil. If I stand next to a thief in the subway, but don't know that he has a stolen wallet in his jacket and he gets away with his crime, am I morally responsible for this (un)knowledge? Of course not. (Remember that if I did know, I would be an accomplice or an accessory.) I had not yet received the knowledge of his offense. Thus it is the same with Adam and Eve.

Prior to the original sin, Adam and Eve did not understand that their nature was, by virtue of their status as creatures, inherently sinful. They could not measure up to God's righteousness. It would have been impossible. To measure up to God's righteousness, you would have to be God, but God cannot make more of Himself. There cannot be two Gods. That would be impossible because we would then have two Truths, which is again, a logical impossibility. This is why we must receive the sacrifice of Christ and be embonded to him in his body. It is only Christ's sacrifice that is sufficient for the covering of our sins and our nature. We can't become sinless.

This is the lie of the Nazarene doctrine of entire sanctification (apparently, the Orthodox faith has a similar doctrine). It's wholly blasphemous against the Father because it says that we can become entirely righteous.

Sin isn't imputed to God in the fall because 1. He told them not to do it, 2. He gave them a conscience 3. He gave them true knowledge, holiness & righteousness which would enable them to keep the law perfectly. The sinned anyway, not God's fault

I won't argue that God did not bestow sufficient grace upon Adam and Eve that they should be appropriately restrained in his presence. He cannot bear sin, so he would have logically graced them so that they would not sin in his presence. But he was apparently not present when they ate of the tree. That has to make us consider man before that sin.

Were they ever apart from God's presence before the fall? If so, did God restrain them at that time? God's only commandment to them was that they should not eat of the tree. Nothing is said of any other commandments. We cannot rightly assume that there were none, but we cannot rightly assume that there were; however, according to what Paul writes, they were sinless because there was no law against which they would be in offense. There cannot be transgression where something cannot be transgressed.

The standard of righteousness is, has been, and will always be, God. He alone is holy and worthy of praise. Every other moral being is a sinful creature. They have to be, otherwise God would not be who he is! The angels aren't perfect. Man isn't perfect. If there are other moral beings, they aren't perfect, either. They could not be because it would mean that God is not truly the author of righteousness, only an emulation of it.

He had done literally everything to prevent sin but stand there & babysit the tree.

God ordained that sin should enter into the world. If he hadn't, it wouldn't have. God is completely sovereign. If he did not desire man to come unto the knowledge of the law (and thus sin), then he would have either not put the tree in the garden, or caused Adam and Eve not to partake of it. To say that he did everything he could to prevent sin is like saying that sin entered into the world against God's will. That's Arminianism talking.

There is at least one instance in the OT before the actual giving of the law of Israel keeping the Sabbath- in the gathering of Manna before Ex. 20, in the creation order, etc. They were clearly "under the law" though it had not yet been formally given.

Ah, you are talking about the Jewish covenant--I am not. By the "law," I mean the knowledge of good and evil: that is, the knowledge of God's righteousness and the knowledge of man's depravity. When Adam partook of the fruit, he became aware of his sinful state. Nothing about his nature changed, only that he was now able to comprehend his nature comparable to God. He then understood what it meant to sin. All of mankind since him has inhereted this instinctive knowledge. That is the depravity of the state of man: knowing that we are impossibly (but not irreconcilably) unrighteous. This is why we need Jesus.

Dunno if that answered your desire for a lawless utopia or not

Hee hee! Not quite what I had in mind with this post.