Why did he do it?

[Reformationist]

Hello my reformed brethren. I am currently reading Willing To Believe, by R. C. Sproul. Great book in case anyone is interested. Anyway, there is an issue I was curious about that I thought I might get a reformed perspective on.

Now, we would all probably agree that pre-Fall man was created with a measure of liberty to obey God that post-Fall man no longer enjoys. What I'm curious about is why Adam chose to disobey God when he, up until the point of his evil inclination to disobey, had no inherent proclivity to disregard the command of God. In other words, why did a previously good creature spontaneously choose to disobey?

If this falls into the catagory of simply one of those things that God has chosen not to reveal to us I can be satisfied with that. I do not wish to sinfully seek knowledge of things the Lord has maintained as His own hidden will. I just thought that maybe this was something one of you more learned scholars may have some insight into.

Thanks for your time.

God bless,
Don

 

[Sola Gratia]

First we need to realize that Adam was innocent. There was no sin in the world so i guess we could say he was 'sinless' .
All he understood was that something would happen if he broke that covenant . He had no conception of sin or death .


I have heard it said that Adam chose to follow Eve.
She was deceived but he understood there were consequences and he wanted to be with her when they occurred

But I believe that Adam was standing right there when the serpent tempted eve. He heard the lie that he could be a god . He saw that nothing happened to her so when she offered it , he too partook .

The question is did eve sin? Thee was no covenant between her and God. The law was to Adam .
Could she sin when there was no sin in the world? Seeing that God did not act until Adam ate, I tend to think that her sin was not counted until he ate ... but only a guess.

One thing we can consider that God knew Adam would fall , Adam was made in such a way that the fall was assured . God could have made him or the situation such that the fall would not have occurred .

 

[Reformationist]

First we need to realize that Adam was innocent. There was no sin in the world so i guess we could say he was 'sinless' .
All he understood was that something would happen if he broke that covenant . He had no conception of sin or death .

I'm confused. Are you contending that Adam didn't know it would be wrong to violate the commandment of God?

I have heard it said that Adam chose to follow Eve.
She was deceived but he understood there were consequences and he wanted to be with her when they occurred

So Adam's disobedience was motivated by a noble desire to stand by his woman?

But I believe that Adam was standing right there when the serpent tempted eve. He heard the lie that he could be a god . He saw that nothing happened to her so when she offered it , he too partook .

So Adam thought that God was joking when He said that disobedience would bring death?

The question is did eve sin? Thee was no covenant between her and God. The law was to Adam .
Could she sin when there was no sin in the world? Seeing that God did not act until Adam ate, I tend to think that her sin was not counted until he ate ... but only a guess.

The problem is that Eve knew what God's commandment was. Not only did she cite the commandment, she included prohibitions that God never did, saying, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die."

One thing we can consider that God knew Adam would fall , Adam was made in such a way that the fall was assured . God could have made him or the situation such that the fall would not have occurred .

Adam was made upright. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that rebellion was a necessary result of Adam's constituent nature. If that were true then God's covenant with Adam, promising him everlasting life, would have been a vain promise.

I agree that God knew that Adam would fall from grace but I don't know of anything in the Gospel which indicates that God made Adam in such a way as to assure that he fell. If God made Adam in a manner that necessitated that he fall then why did God hold him accountable for doing so?

I think the Bible is clear that Adam had no inherent proclivity to disobey, though he clearly had the ability to do so. Adam had no sinful nature to contend with. He lived in a sin-free environment. I also think the Bible is clear that while man was made upright he was mutable. What I'm wondering about is what caused Adam to desire to disobey God when he had no inherent proclivity to do so.

Thanks for your response.

God bless

 

[Sola Gratia]

I'm confused. Are you contending that Adam didn't know it would be wrong to violate the commandment of God?

As I read it , there was no sin in the world. He was the only man that did not have original sin , or a" sin nature". He had never seen sin .
I have always heard Adam referred to as 'innocent' . Innocent is not knowing "right from wrong "
He did know that he was not to eat the fruit. He did know there was a consequence for eating it. But did he understand it as sin?


What does the scripture tell us.
The tree was the tree of THE KNOWLEDGE of good and evil . Eating from the tree (sinning) would give them the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, they would then be "gods" ( judges) . That would be the conscience .
Adam had never seen evil , he had never seen sin. So how was he to know it was a sin? That is like asking a blind man to describe a sunset.

So no , Adam could not have articulated that eating from the tree would be a sin .

So Adam's disobedience was motivated by a noble desire to stand by his woman?

This is not a position I hold , but i have heard it said many times.. he loved her and did not want her alone or "punished " alone.
I throw it out only for discussion

So Adam thought that God was joking when He said that disobedience would bring death?

Do we know that he knew what death was ? There is no record that he had ever seen death. They were vegetarians . Had they ever seen the death of an animal until God slayed the animal to cover their nakedness.

1Cr 15:21
For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.


We just do not know Reformist. We do know that even if he did know what death meant, eve did not die when she ate the fruit, He would have seen that .
We also know now , he did not physically die when he ate the fruit either. he died spiritually.
Consider his thoughts then. One moment everything was good and beautiful to him. That was the norm . Then he eats the fruit and the world no longer looks the same, he sees evil. His body now shames him. he no longer wants to spend time with God, he runs and hides. I wonder if he ever had pain before then, because pain seems to be part of the curse. The ground was now his enemy . But he still lived.
So did he think God was kidding? I do not know, but I doubt he did understand the consequences that he would have .

The problem is that Eve knew what God's commandment was. Not only did she cite the commandment, she included prohibitions that God never did, saying, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die."

A covenant is only valid between the parties. She was not a party to the covenant .
If we attribute sin to her , then sin did not enter the world by one man ... but by one woman. Paul tell us where there is no law there is no sin she was not under that law IMO , Adam was
But when he ate the consequence of his sin was also her consequence ,just as it is our consequence .

Notice it was when HE ate the fruit that THEIR EYES were open . Her eyes did not open when she ate it . I do not know that this is true , but that is the impression that their understanding happened at the same time

Adam was made upright. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that rebellion was a necessary result of Adam's constituent nature. If that were true then God's covenant with Adam, promising him everlasting life, would have been a vain promise.

Does any thing exist outside the ordination of God?
Who is that fashioned Adam AFTER the plan of salvation was established? After the names of the elect were written in the Lambs book?

I agree that God knew that Adam would fall from grace but I don't know of anything in the Gospel which indicates that God made Adam in such a way as to assure that he fell. If God made Adam in a manner that necessitated that he fall then why did God hold him accountable for doing so?

Why was Judas held accountable?

Reformist , Could God have made Adam in such a way that he would not desire to rebel ? Nothing exists outside of the ordination of God. Man will always choose according to his preferences . Those preferences are placed in us by God . So He knows how you will respond in certain situations .
God ordains the situation and man will chose how he reacts to it. Adam could have chosen not to eat the fruit, but God knew he would because of the nature of Adam and the preferences of Adam and the environment God placed them in .

I think the Bible is clear that Adam had no inherent proclivity to disobey, though he clearly had the ability to do so. Adam had no sinful nature to contend with. He lived in a sin-free environment. I also think the Bible is clear that while man was made upright he was mutable. What I'm wondering about is what caused Adam to desire to disobey God when he had no inherent proclivity to do so.

Thanks for your response.

God bless

This comes down to the purpose of creation .

There is nothing that exists outside of the ordination of God NOT one thing.
All things including sin and evil are for his glory . Without them we would never know what holy is or mercy is. .

Jonathan Edwards said the following
"the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow." It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . . .


Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.


If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired. . .

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.

If we deny that Ephesians 1:11 (In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will extends even to sinful actions…are we going to rob ourselves also of the comfort of Romans 8:28 that God causes "all things to work together for good to them that love God" by applying it only to good actions? Is Romans 8:28 not dependent upon Ephesians 1:11?

http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/shedd.html

 

[Reformationist]

As I read it , there was no sin in the world. He was the only man that did not have original sin , or a" sin nature". He had never seen sin .

Okay. I agree.

I have always heard Adam referred to as 'innocent' . Innocent is not knowing "right from wrong "

I would have to summarily disagree with this. To claim that Adam did not know right from wrong is to attribute an unrighteous response from God with regard to Adam's disobedience. It would be the same as a human parent punishing a child for doing something wrong that they did not know was wrong, and punishing them in the extreme at that. Additionally, wouldn't you say that Christ was "innocent?" Did not Christ know right from wrong?

He did know that he was not to eat the fruit. He did know there was a consequence for eating it. But did he understand it as sin?

I think it is necessary to a proper understanding of God's wrath against the disobedience of Adam to acknowledge that Adam knew that disobeying God would be sinful, regardless if he was fully cognizant of what the wages of that sin were.

What does the scripture tell us.
The tree was the tree of THE KNOWLEDGE of good and evil . Eating from the tree (sinning) would give them the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, they would then be "gods" ( judges) . That would be the conscience .
Adam had never seen evil , he had never seen sin. So how was he to know it was a sin? That is like asking a blind man to describe a sunset.

Again I think claiming Adam was ignorant of the wrongdoing of his disobedience is to accuse God of committing a tragedy of injustice against Adam. I do not think the "knowledge" that is spoken of when referencing the "knowledge of good and evil" is properly offset by claiming that Adam was ignorant of his actions being sinful. As I said, I think that would place upon God a level of unrighteousness that would violate the very fabric of His holiness.

So no , Adam could not have articulated that eating from the tree would be a sin .

If Adam didn't know that disobeying God would be sinful then why is God justified in punishing him? Consider the analogy of a parent. Is a parent justified in punishing a child for doing something wrong that they do not know is wrong? Make no mistake. Adam was punished. He was not cast from the Garden to suffer the torments of a sinful nature for the purpose of instruction. He was punished.

This is not a position I hold , but i have heard it said many times.. he loved her and did not want her alone or "punished " alone.
I throw it out only for discussion

Well, for the time being I'll forego addressing it since neither you nor I hold that position as a viable possibility.

Do we know that he knew what death was ? There is no record that he had ever seen death. They were vegetarians . Had they ever seen the death of an animal until God slayed the animal to cover their nakedness.

1Cr 15:21
For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.

We just do not know Reformist. We do know that even if he did know what death meant, eve did not die when she ate the fruit, He would have seen that .

The issue we must address isn't whether Adam gave no credence to the severity of the penalty. We must determine, first, whether Adam understood that he was expected to obey and whether disobeying would be wrong and detrimental to his being, on whatever level he was able to comprehend. It seems as if your position is that Adam was ignorant of both the ramifications and morality of his actions.

We also know now , he did not physically die when he ate the fruit either. he died spiritually.

I don't know that I'd completely agree with that either. Yes, Adam remained physically alive for a period of time but he steadily marched toward the grave. The physical effects of his disobedience sprung up immediately.

A covenant is only valid between the parties. She was not a party to the covenant .

If Eve was not party to the covenant then she could not have benefitted from Adam's obedience. In the same regard, neither could any of Adam's progeny.

If we attribute sin to her , then sin did not enter the world by one man ... but by one woman. Paul tell us where there is no law there is no sin she was not under that law IMO , Adam was

I think "entered into the world" is a seminal reference, not a geographical one. The "world" was in Adam when he sinned and, thus, all sinned and all died. This spiritual and physical corruption was manifested upon all whom Adam represented, including Eve.

But when he ate the consequence of his sin was also her consequence ,just as it is our consequence .

If Eve was not part of that covenant then it would be unrighteous to apply either its benefits or its repercussions to her.

Does any thing exist outside the ordination of God?
Who is that fashioned Adam AFTER the plan of salvation was established? After the names of the elect were written in the Lambs book?

You misunderstand. I'm not denying that the Fall was always part of God's plan nor am I denying that it came to pass according to His divine providence. All I'm saying is that rebellion was not a necessary part of Adam's constituent nature. In fact, being that he had no sin nature it should have been rather easy for him to avoid sinning.

Why was Judas held accountable?

You're talking apples and oranges. Adam was not created with a sinful nature, Judas was. Judas' accountability for his actions is not determined by the fact of his fallen state. To be sure, he sinned according to his fallen nature, with which he was created. However, it was perfectly righteous for God to create Judas with a sinful nature because that sinful nature is the product of Adam's choice, and Judas in Adam.

Reformist , Could God have made Adam in such a way that he would not desire to rebel ?

That is my whole point. I contend that that is how He actually made Adam. What I'm asking is, why does a creation that was not created with a desire to disobey suddenly disobey?

Nothing exists outside of the ordination of God.

I agree.

Man will always choose according to his preferences .

Again, I agree.

Those preferences are placed in us by God .

I agree.

So He knows how you will respond in certain situations .

Okay. I agree.

God ordains the situation and man will chose how he reacts to it. Adam could have chosen not to eat the fruit, but God knew he would because of the nature of Adam and the preferences of Adam and the environment God placed them in .

I agree with all that. However, unless God gave Adam a desire to rebel how do we account for Adam's spontaneous desire to rebel?

I agree with the rest of your post. I just don't see how any of it explains why Adam spontaneously chose to rebel.

God bless,
Don

 

[S682]

Now, we would all probably agree that pre-Fall man was created with a measure of liberty to obey God that post-Fall man no longer enjoys.
God bless,
Don

Could you explain this, please. Thanks. God bless you too.

 

[Irishcat922]

Dabney says it was probably concupiscence! After a period of time Adam began to covet the fruit and then began to question God's mandate, and then with a little coaxing from Satan yielded to the temptation.

Chapter VI
​

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
​

​

1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.

 

[Irishcat922]

Dabney says it was probably concupiscence! After a period of time Adam began to covet the fruit and then began to question God's mandate, and then with a little coaxing from Satan yielded to the temptation.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter VI


​

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof​

​

1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.


EAV Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

EAV 2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled1 Eve through his subtilty,2 so your minds should be corrupted3 from the simplicity4 that is in Christ.

Scripture Proof (2)

EAV Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all1 in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

 

[Reformationist]

Could you explain this, please. Thanks. God bless you too.

Sure. Prior to the Fall, the liberty of man's will was not bound by a sinful nature. After man fell from grace by disobeying, sin became part of his constituent nature. In effect, his nature was changed. Fallen man is not a sinner because he sins. He sins because he is a sinner. Apart from the liberating grace of God, which frees him from the bondage inherent to his nature, he would only desire, and thus choose, to rebel against the Law of God.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Dabney says it was probably concupiscence!

I agree that Adam chose to disobey because he had a desire to disobey. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking why he had a desire to disobey.

Any thoughts on that?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[cygnusx1]

The nearest I have come to understanding this question is not by looking at Adam , but by looking at the second Adam .. Christ Jesus .

If we carefully examine the temptaions of Christ , particularly in Gethsemene , we get a glimpse of something , something so obvious we pass over it with scarcly a seconds thought .
That something indicates how Adam , a perfect man could fall into temptation and commit sin.
That something is WEAKNESS .
God created man both upright and Perfect , but not strong .
Weakness of flesh , desire , will are shown us in Christ , yet this is even more reason to worship , because under weakness Christ overcame every temptation and fleshly desire , whereas Adam fell straight away .

I think this theme can and ought to be developed.

Greetings Cygnus

 

[CalvinOwen]

In other words, why did a previously good creature spontaneously choose to disobey?

I think it is because without Christ even pre-fallen man could do nothing. I think God created man knowing man would sin to give all glory to Christ. What puzzles me is why some of the angels didn't fall.

 

[puriteen18]

I once heard a preacher say that God preordained that man should fall so that God could further reveal Himself. It is because of the Fall, that we see the many of the attributes of God: righteousness, justice, mercy, hate, love, etc.

In any case Adam fell that God may be glorified. That is why everything that happens, and ever has happened, and ever will happen.

 

[Reformationist]

The nearest I have come to understanding this question is not by looking at Adam , but by looking at the second Adam .. Christ Jesus .

If we carefully examine the temptaions of Christ , particularly in Gethsemene , we get a glimpse of something , something so obvious we pass over it with scarcly a seconds thought .
That something indicates how Adam , a perfect man could fall into temptation and commit sin.
That something is WEAKNESS .
God created man both upright and Perfect , but not strong .
Weakness of flesh , desire , will are shown us in Christ , yet this is even more reason to worship , because under weakness Christ overcame every temptation and fleshly desire , whereas Adam fell straight away .

I think this theme can and ought to be developed.

Greetings Cygnus

Hey cyg. The "weakness of the flesh" is not something I've read of in pre-Fall man. Are you merely drawing this conclusion because Adam did give into temptation? "Weakness" is a term that must, in some way, denote some type of deficiency or inability to resist. The problem is, if we say that the uncorrupted flesh of pre-Fall Adam was originally created weak or unable to resist temptation then we are back to making God culpable for Adam's inherent proclivity, or vulnerability, to temptation and then, clearly unrighteous for punishing him for it.

Unless we acknowledge that "upright and perfect" means that nothing in Adam's pre-Fall nature inherently inclines him to rebellion or makes him inherently vulnerable to it we must, with regard to culpability, submit that God is at least partially responsible for Adam succumbing to temptation.

Of course I am not comfortable with any such notion, nor do I think it's biblical.

Thanks for your reply bro,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I think it is because without Christ even pre-fallen man could do nothing.

But he was obedient in all things except for that so he clearly could be obedient. Granted, he could do nothing without the grace of God but I'm not sure if that's what you meant. If he couldn't be obedient without Christ then it was necessary that he fall to even be obedient. I don't know. The idea that disobedience is required in order to be obedient sounds to confusing and contradictory to me.

I think God created man knowing man would sin to give all glory to Christ.

I'm sure that He knew.

What puzzles me is why some of the angels didn't fall.

Didn't they? I thought one third of the angels fell when they followed the lead of Lucifer.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I once heard a preacher say that God preordained that man should fall so that God could further reveal Himself. It is because of the Fall, that we see the many of the attributes of God: righteousness, justice, mercy, hate, love, etc.

In any case Adam fell that God may be glorified. That is why everything that happens, and ever has happened, and ever will happen.

I agree with all that and have stated the same thing myself. The truth of the Fall is that though it is tragic it is also wonderful. We have a fuller understanding of our Lord because of the Fall. We know Him not only as Lord but also as Savior.

However, unless you are contending that the preordination of God superceded the obedient will of Adam and caused him to disobey, which I'm sure you're not, we are back where we started.

God's eternal ordination is not an advocation of determinism.

Thanks for your reply,
God bless

 

[CalvinOwen]

But he was obedient in all things except for that so he clearly could be obedient. Granted, he could do nothing without the grace of God but I'm not sure if that's what you meant. If he couldn't be obedient without Christ then it was necessary that he fall to even be obedient. I don't know. The idea that disobedience is required in order to be obedient sounds to confusing and contradictory to me.

I believe God created all so that all glory would go to Christ. This was His purpose in all creation. Therefore creating man was with the ultimate purpose of saving man from himself. Even though man was created without a sinful nature it was and always will be only Jesus Christ who would/could obey God perfectly. This seems to be the point God was making and that is to become our righteousness and our obedience, and to show His elect just how much He can love and does love us.

Even man created without a sinful nature could and would not obey God, only Christ would ever be able to do it. I only conclude all this based on actual history and God's revelation in Scripture to bring all the world under Christ's dominion.

What I meant to say earlier, is I'm surprised some Angel's didn't fall, in other words why/how could some created beings have the ability to obey God? That is a mystery to me.

 

[Sola Gratia]

Okay. I agree.


I would have to summarily disagree with this. To claim that Adam did not know right from wrong is to attribute an unrighteous response from God with regard to Adam's disobedience. It would be the same as a human parent punishing a child for doing something wrong that they did not know was wrong, and punishing them in the extreme at that. Additionally, wouldn't you say that Christ was "innocent?" Did not Christ know right from wrong?


I think it is necessary to a proper understanding of God's wrath against the disobedience of Adam to acknowledge that Adam knew that disobeying God would be sinful, regardless if he was fully cognizant of what the wages of that sin were.

How does a man know what sin is if there is no sin in the world?
Sin did not enter UNTIL he sinned .God told Adam the contract and that he would die.
Adam knew that there were consequences to breaking the covenant . You want to say that means he knew if he did that he sinned. I think you are using language that Adam would not have understood. I do not think he knew or understood the extent of the results.
Did he know what it would mean to die? IF he understood the concept of death , eve did not die physically . Do you think he understood spiritual death ? Do you think knew there would be a curse? Or what that curse would be?
The scriptures do not tell us that .

Before the fall a conscience was not needed. There was no sin. When he sinned , he then knew what sin was. He then ran and hid.

Let me ask you this. Do you tell your child not to touch a stove because it is "hot", when he does not understand the concept of hot to burn you?

He does not understand the warning until he does it .. then the words have a meaning.
Adam knew not to eat and that there was a consequence, but there was no sin in the world. I doubt he would have verbalized that it was "sin" .

Again I think claiming Adam was ignorant of the wrongdoing of his disobedience is to accuse God of committing a tragedy of injustice against Adam.

I think that we are talking past each other. I think he knew that God had ordered him not to .I believe He knew it was breaking the covenant when he ate it and that he should not do it. BUT remember that they did not know right from wrong (good from evil) . That was the promise of the snake to them. They would be like god

Gen 3:5
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.


Before he sinned he did not know good from evil .

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.

We can quibble about words , but the fact is there for all to see. They did not know good from evil, so the word sin would have been foreign to them

I do not think the "knowledge" that is spoken of when referencing the "knowledge of good and evil" is properly offset by claiming that Adam was ignorant of his actions being sinful. As I said, I think that would place upon God a level of unrighteousness that would violate the very fabric of His holiness.

If one lacks knowledge then they are by definition ignorant

If Adam didn't know that disobeying God would be sinful then why is God justified in punishing him? Consider the analogy of a parent. Is a parent justified in punishing a child for doing something wrong that they do not know is wrong? Make no mistake. Adam was punished. He was not cast from the Garden to suffer the torments of a sinful nature for the purpose of instruction. He was punished.

God is justified because he told him what not to do and he was disobedient
A parent would be unjust in punishing a child for breaking a rule he did not know, but Adam did know the rule .

The issue we must address isn't whether Adam gave no credence to the severity of the penalty. We must determine, first, whether Adam understood that he was expected to obey and whether disobeying would be wrong and detrimental to his being, on whatever level he was able to comprehend. It seems as if your position is that Adam was ignorant of both the ramifications and morality of his actions.
I don't know that I'd completely agree with that either. Yes, Adam remained physically alive for a period of time but he steadily marched toward the grave. The physical effects of his disobedience sprung up immediately.

He did not die immediately . What did God tell him ?


Gen 2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:



Gen 2:17
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.

God did not say on THAT day you will START to die .
God told him it was an immediate .

If Eve was not party to the covenant then she could not have benefitted from Adam's obedience. In the same regard, neither could any of Adam's progeny.

I am a Calvinist, give me the scripture, not what you think .
Eve's creation was after the covenant between Adam and God.
Give me the scripture that says she was a party to the covenant.

I think "entered into the world" is a seminal reference, not a geographical one. The "world" was in Adam when he sinned and, thus, all sinned and all died. This spiritual and physical corruption was manifested upon all whom Adam represented, including Eve.

The word Kosmos is used.
But that aside a careful reading of that text says 3 things happened in the fall if we read your favored definition of the word world there is unneeded text here

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin{1} entered into the world, and{2} death by sin; and so{3} death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Notice that Paul teaches sin entering the world and death passing onto men from sin .
Two things happened Gods GOOD creation was now inhabited by evil and sin was passed onto men.

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men

And that would include eve .
I think the scriptures substantiate 2 things , Adam was the Federal head ( of eve) and the seminal head of humanity (,we were all there with him)

If Eve was not part of that covenant then it would be unrighteous to apply either its benefits or its repercussions to her.

Just show me the scripture .
I believe she was under the headship of her husband .

You misunderstand. I'm not denying that the Fall was always part of God's plan nor am I denying that it came to pass according to His divine providence. All I'm saying is that rebellion was not a necessary part of Adam's constituent nature. In fact, being that he had no sin nature it should have been rather easy for him to avoid sinning.

So it came from ?????

You're talking apples and oranges. Adam was not created with a sinful nature, Judas was. Judas' accountability for his actions is not determined by the fact of his fallen state. To be sure, he sinned according to his fallen nature, with which he was created. However, it was perfectly righteous for God to create Judas with a sinful nature because that sinful nature is the product of Adam's choice, and Judas in Adam.

No not at all .

Adam was held accountable for a foreordained fall, Judas was held responsible for a foreordained act .
There is the similarity .

That is my whole point. I contend that that is how He actually made Adam. What I'm asking is, why does a creation that was not created with a desire to disobey suddenly disobey?


I agree.


Again, I agree.


I agree.


Okay. I agree.


I agree with all that. However, unless God gave Adam a desire to rebel how do we account for Adam's spontaneous desire to rebel?

I agree with the rest of your post. I just don't see how any of it explains why Adam spontaneously chose to rebel.

God bless,
Don

I believe our discussion began with my comment that God could have made Adam in such a way as he would not have fallen , if he had so ordained.

I hold to that truth .
There is not one thing that exists that God has not created. There are no self existent or self created things .

So the forces that brought lucifer to rebel and Adam to fall were part of the creation of God within them .

Dabney says this

The mystery cannot be fully solved how the first evil choice could voluntarily arise in a holy soul; but we can clearly prove that it is no sound reasoning from the certainty of a depraved will to that of a holy finite will. First: a finite creature can only be indefectible through the perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infinite wisdom and grace, guarding the finite and fallible attention of the soul against sin. This was righteously withheld from Satan and Adam"

 

[Sola Gratia]

I once heard a preacher say that God preordained that man should fall so that God could further reveal Himself. It is because of the Fall, that we see the many of the attributes of God: righteousness, justice, mercy, hate, love, etc.

In any case Adam fell that God may be glorified. That is why everything that happens, and ever has happened, and ever will happen.

You have a wise preacher.

 

[Sola Gratia]

Hey cyg. The "weakness of the flesh" is not something I've read of in pre-Fall man. Are you merely drawing this conclusion because Adam did give into temptation? "Weakness" is a term that must, in some way, denote some type of deficiency or inability to resist. The problem is, if we say that the uncorrupted flesh of pre-Fall Adam was originally created weak or unable to resist temptation then we are back to making God culpable for Adam's inherent proclivity, or vulnerability, to temptation and then, clearly unrighteous for punishing him for it.

Unless we acknowledge that "upright and perfect" means that nothing in Adam's pre-Fall nature inherently inclines him to rebellion or makes him inherently vulnerable to it we must, with regard to culpability, submit that God is at least partially responsible for Adam succumbing to temptation.

Of course I am not comfortable with any such notion, nor do I think it's biblical.

Thanks for your reply bro,
God bless

Have you considered it was not SOMETHING that was there, but something that was not?

Gods hand restrains man from being as evil as he could be. I believe it was Gods restraining hand that was withdrawn when Jesus gave Judas the permission to act.