Why did he do it?

Reformationist · Dec 10, 2004

oworm said:
Yes..................I think we will need to mount a covert "Sproul publications extraction mission" from Dons house

You guys are a crack up. And they say Calvinists are stuffy scholars...who would have thunk it??

God bless

Angel of Harmony · Dec 10, 2004

CalvinOwen said:
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.

Oh, but they did.

Angel of Harmony · Dec 10, 2004

CalvinOwen said:
But God has the most perfect free will of all and he can not sin! He can not because he never wills to sin, He is perfect.

God is holy.

CalvinOwen · Dec 10, 2004

Angel of Harmony said:
God is holy.

And man is not perfect, nor ever was.

Instead of ceasing this debate, I think it would be very helpful if we discuss the Scriptural support for Adam being perfect.

Irishcat922 · Dec 10, 2004

The Creation of Man by John Calvin

God created man with a will that was free. Adam had the power to resist temptation if he had willed to do so. And Adam fell by his own will. His mind and will were perfect, in the original state in which he was created, and all his parts were in submission to his will. He was free to choose good or evil. But when he chose evil, he ruined himself and so corrupted all his faculties. From that time on, man has not been completely controlled by reason. The philosophers were right in thinking that man would not be a reasoning creature unless he was free to choose between good and evil. They saw that if he did not control his life by his own will, there would be no goodness in choosing good nor badness in choosing evil. But they are not completely right. We must take into account the change in human nature. Man no longer has a free will. Our wills are bound by sin.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

oworm · Dec 10, 2004

Reformationist said:
So the cause of Adam's disobedience was that the devil deceived him?

God bless

No! I was merely following up on Cyg1,s "Weakness" in post 11.
If i were to suggest that Adam was less culpable by implicating Satan as the cause of his disobedience then i know that would be to make God less than justified in his righteous judgement on sin.

Reformationist · Dec 10, 2004

oworm said:
No! I was merely following up on Cyg1,s "Weakness" in post 11.
If i were to suggest that Adam was less culpable by implicating Satan as the cause of his disobedience then i know that would be to make God less than justified in his righteous judgement on sin.

So you were merely saying that the idea that Adam had an inherent weakness can be derived by the fact that he was so easily deceived?

Thanks,
God bless

Angel of Harmony · Dec 10, 2004

Reformationist said:
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

I cannot find this in my Bible. Could you direct me, please, where this is found in Scripture? Thanks, and God bless.

Knight · Dec 10, 2004

Reformationist said:
You guys are a crack up. And they say Calvinists are stuffy scholars...who would have thunk it??

God bless

A stereotype I'm determined to see fade into oblivion...

CalvinOwen · Dec 10, 2004

Irishcat922 said:
The Creation of Man by John Calvin

God created man with a will that was free. Adam had the power to resist temptation if he had willed to do so. And Adam fell by his own will. His mind and will were perfect, in the original state in which he was created, and all his parts were in submission to his will. He was free to choose good or evil. But when he chose evil, he ruined himself and so corrupted all his faculties. From that time on, man has not been completely controlled by reason. The philosophers were right in thinking that man would not be a reasoning creature unless he was free to choose between good and evil. They saw that if he did not control his life by his own will, there would be no goodness in choosing good nor badness in choosing evil. But they are not completely right. We must take into account the change in human nature. Man no longer has a free will. Our wills are bound by sin.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

I can't find this in my bible either. Don't get me wrong, I love Calvin, but I need to see some Scripture on Adam being perfect.

Irishcat922 · Dec 10, 2004

Don't you think this is implied doctrinally since man was created in the Image of God, is God's Image imperfect somehow because man was created with the capability to sin. Do you want me to find you some scriptures with the word Trinity in them also, or don't you think that is implied as well. I mean come on man, think rationally here. God's Image is perfect, man created in that image= man created perfect.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,1 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen. 9:6b for in the image of God made he man.

CalvinOwen · Dec 11, 2004

Irishcat922 said:
Don't you think this is implied doctrinally since man was created in the Image of God, is God's Image imperfect somehow because man was created with the capability to sin. Do you want me to find you some scriptures with the word Trinity in them also, or don't you think that is implied as well. I mean come on man, think rationally here. God's Image is perfect, man created in that image= man created perfect.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,1 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen. 9:6b for in the image of God made he man.

I'm all for inferring the obvious from Scripture, but you do know God can not sin, don't you? To infer that God creating man in His image means He created Adam with the same characteristic of not being capable of sinning is just incorrect, right? So what is the debate?

Or are you suggesting that God can sin, yet He just chooses not to?

The Scriptures clearly teach that God can not sin, not that He just wills not to sin.

HEB 6:18 ...in which it was impossible for God to lie,

TITUS 1:2 ...which God, that cannot lie,

2TI 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

JAM 1:13 ...for God cannot be tempted with evil,

This character trait was not passed on to Adam, obviously. But this shouldn't surprise us too much. I mean lets look at what other traits of God were not included in the image of God created in Adam:

Adam could not speak worlds into existence
Adam was not omniscient
Adam was not omnipotent
Adam was not omnipresent
Adam could not tell the end from the beginning
Adam was not a spirit
Adam was not a Trinity
Adam could not work miracles

I could go on....

Now using your own word's and logic, let's experiment a little:

I mean come on man, think rationally here. God's Image is omniscient, man created in that image= man created omniscient.

I mean come on man, think rationally here. God's Image is omnipotent, man created in that image= man created omnipotent.

I mean come on man, think rationally here. God's Image is omnipresent, man created in that image= man created omnipresent.

I mean come on man, think rationally here. God's Image is a spirit, man created in that image= man created a spirit.

I mean come on man, think rationally here. God's Image is a Trinity, man created in that image= man created a Trinity.

You see? I can not infer that just because God is perfect, Adam was perfect. That is to infer a lot, too much in fact for my liking. I think Adam was created sinless and therefore was inclined to always do good but perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, no way man.

Irishcat922 · Dec 11, 2004

God is imutable man is not nor ever was, God created man in his Image therefore man was created perfect, i.e. not in every sense like God. But as far as his mind, will and emotions are concerned. As concerning the will it was perfect yet mutable.To imply that man was some how created in imperfection, would negate the doctrine of imputation, if Adam was imperfect he could not represent mankind, therefore the Apostle Paul was wrong and how can we really believe the gospel. The Guilt of Adam's sin passed on to His Posterity. Christ was conceived in perfection, you do believe that don't you. Adam was created in the same perfection yet not Divine. Else neither one could represent their posterity. Adam in the freedom of his will, chose to sin, Christ in the freedom of His will chose obedience.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

CalvinOwen · Dec 11, 2004

Irishcat922 said:
God is imutable man is not nor ever was, God created man in his Image therefore man was created perfect, i.e. not in every sense like God. But as far as his mind, will and emotions are concerned. As concerning the will it was perfect yet mutable.To imply that man was some how created in imperfection, would negate the doctrine of imputation, if Adam was imperfect he could not represent mankind, therefore the Apostle Paul was wrong and how can we really believe the gospel. The Guilt of Adam's sin passed on to His Posterity. Christ was conceived in perfection, you do believe that don't you. Adam was created in the same perfection yet not Divine. Else neither one could represent their posterity. Adam in the freedom of his will, chose to sin, Christ in the freedom of His will chose obedience.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Irish,

I respectfully reply, but those are all your words. None of that is in Scripture about what Adam rec'd of God's image. You are deciding what God gave Adam in His image. You are picking and choosing. The Mormons have picked all God's attributes and that Adam was God once. I heard Kenneth Copeland say that the image included "mind reading," "conversations with the mind only," "supernatural powers i.e., Adam could fly and work miracles."

Now you say Adam was perfect. That is not in Scripture.

And what is not in Scripture is speculative and could be dangerous.

I think Adam represented man very well as a sinless creation inclined to always do good and was given these very strong advantages to "pass the test." I think Adam and Eve had to "work hard to sin." And they did.....work hard.

If Adam was not perfect then that explains why he could and did sin. If Adam was perfect then we must conclude that God could sin but simply chooses not to and of course that opens up a whole can of worms...ie, God can be tempted, He is constantly choosing not to sin, God even might choose to sin one day because after all.....He's only perfect!

Irishcat922 · Dec 11, 2004

From your reasoning you must conclude then that Christ was not perfect either. He had every opportunity to sin but chose not to and in his Human nature was capable of sin. We gather from the N.T. that Christ was tempted in all points yet did not sin, did he have an advantage that Adam did not? I don't think so, in his human nature He was capable of sinning but chose not to.
Christ suceeded where Adam failed. Christ atoned for our sins in His death, He secured righteousness for us through His obedience, we are justified in His rising again from the dead.
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.1

Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.1

Here in Ephesians we see the restoration of the Image of God through Christ. What does it mean created in righteousness and true Holiness? Isn't that perfection?

Barthianism- Man's sin is bound up in his creaturliness.
Determinism- Sin is a necessity inherent in the very nature of things.
Pelagianism- Adam's sin and ours= no connection.
Reformed view- Sin imputed to humanity because of Adam's sin.

So the reformed view is that Adam acted in disobedience at a point in real time. So before he chose to disobey he must have been in a state of perfection, or true holiness.

CalvinOwen · Dec 11, 2004

Irishcat922 said:
From your reasoning you must conclude then that Christ was not perfect either. He had every opportunity to sin but chose not to and in his Human nature was capable of sin. We gather from the N.T. that Christ was tempted in all points yet did not sin, did he have an advantage that Adam did not? I don't think so, in his human nature He was capable of sinning but chose not to.

Christ suceeded where Adam failed. Christ atoned for our sins in His death, He secured righteousness for us through His obedience, we are justified in His rising again from the dead.

So the reformed view is that Adam acted in disobedience at a point in real time. So before he chose to disobey he must have been in a state of perfection, or true holiness.

Please forgive me for correcting you again, but that is not what you can conclude from my reasoning. Christ was 100% man and therefore imperfect and absolutely could be tempted and absolutely could sin. But He was also 100% God and therefore was perfect. It's a dichotomy that we'll never be able to understand because Scripture is silent on much of this mystery.

I believe Christ absolutely did have an advantage over Adam. Very much so! He was God, Adam was not. I know you hold to this.

Christ succeeded where Adam failed because He was The God Man. The only man predestined to ever "perfectly" obey God. As I stated earlier, I believe this was always the lesson God wanted to teach man. Man even in a sinless state with a strong inclination and advantage never to sin could not obey God, God wanted us to see and understanding we could never obey Him without His Son.

Reformationist · Dec 12, 2004

CalvinOwen said:
Christ succeeded where Adam failed because He was The God Man.

If this is the reason that Christ succeeded where Adam failed then how is His substitutionary atonement accepted as vicarious? We do not have this dichotomous nature. If it was Christ's divine nature that enabled and caused Him to do what Adam never did then who's at fault for Adam's sin being that he was never created with this necessary natural componant? If a divine nature coupled with the human nature is essential for obedience then God created Adam without an integral part of his being and then held him accountable for not displaying the obedience that was exclusive to that necessary componant. For that matter, we will never have a divine nature yet, in Heaven, we will be confirmed in grace and, therefore, be incapable of sin. Additionally, if there is such a substantial difference between the first Adam and the second Adam why is Christ credited with obeying where Adam didn't? The logical conclusion is, "Well of course He obeyed. He had a divine nature." If a divine nature is essential in order to be perfectly obedient then God has no justifiable grounds for holding Adam accountable for his transgression.

The only man predestined to ever "perfectly" obey God. As I stated earlier, I believe this was always the lesson God wanted to teach man. Man even in a sinless state with a strong inclination and advantage never to sin could not obey God, God wanted us to see and understanding we could never obey Him without His Son.

I agree that God had eternally purposed the Fall to bring us in to a greater knowledge of our Lord and our reliance on Him for all things, and, I agree that the manner in which He has decreed that it come to pass is most effective. What I find revolting is the idea that Adam, prior to the Fall, was incapable of perfect obedience and then held accountable for not obeying. His sin becomes superfluous because God's divine choice to withhold from him the necessary componant for him to obey places God at fault for his disobedience. Now, some may say that this train of thought mirrors God's role in post-Fall man. I say, "not so." Post-Fall man has brought condemnation upon himself by virtue of his disobedience in Adam. God is under no obligation to restrain man or give him the necessary grace to comply with the law. However, if we submit, as you do, that man was never capable of obedience then man is laden with a sin nature that was the only possible result due to some inherent deficiency in his constituent nature.

I do not see how you can reconcile the idea that pre-Fall man is culpable for his sin if you submit that he was never able to do anything other than, eventually, sin.

God bless

CalvinOwen · Dec 13, 2004

Reformationist said:
If this is the reason that Christ succeeded where Adam failed then how is His substitutionary atonement accepted as vicarious? We do not have this dichotomous nature. If it was Christ's divine nature that enabled and caused Him to do what Adam never did then who's at fault for Adam's sin being that he was never created with this necessary natural componant? If a divine nature coupled with the human nature is essential for obedience then God created Adam without an integral part of his being and then held him accountable for not displaying the obedience that was exclusive to that necessary componant. For that matter, we will never have a divine nature yet, in Heaven, we will be confirmed in grace and, therefore, be incapable of sin. Additionally, if there is such a substantial difference between the first Adam and the second Adam why is Christ credited with obeying where Adam didn't? The logical conclusion is, "Well of course He obeyed. He had a divine nature." If a divine nature is essential in order to be perfectly obedient then God has no justifiable grounds for holding Adam accountable for his transgression.

Christ was 100% a man and was therefore capable of being tempted and of sinning that's how His obedience is credited to our behalf. It sounds like you are saying that it's not fair that He was 100% God, but I can't help you with that one. You'll have to ask the Lord why it was fair, but I can tell you this, when we start talking about fair a verse does come to mind;

ROM 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

Reformationist said:
I agree that God had eternally purposed the Fall to bring us in to a greater knowledge of our Lord and our reliance on Him for all things, and, I agree that the manner in which He has decreed that it come to pass is most effective. What I find revolting is the idea that Adam, prior to the Fall, was incapable of perfect obedience and then held accountable for not obeying.

Adam was capable of obeying God and not sinning. He was created with every advantage not to sin. I believe Adam had to work hard against his nature in order to sin. What I am hearing indirectly in your comments is why did God put a tree in the garden? Why didn't God stop satan from tempting Eve? Why didn't God create man with the ability to never sin or even be tempted?

I believe the answer is Jesus Christ, He wanted to demonstrate that only His Son, as 100% man, could obey Him and He wanted His Son to receive all the glory in being the Captain of our salvation and of bringing many men with Him to glory.

Reformationist · Dec 13, 2004

CalvinOwen said:
Christ was 100% a man and was therefore capable of being tempted and of sinning that's how His obedience is credited to our behalf. It sounds like you are saying that it's not fair that He was 100% God, but I can't help you with that one. You'll have to ask the Lord why it was fair, but I can tell you this, when we start talking about fair a verse does come to mind;

ROM 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

CO, there is no need to state this. I, too, am a reformed Christian and have long since operated under the acknowledgement that "fairness" isn't the issue. God has all authority to do as He pleases insofar as it is in accordance with His nature. I am not questioning God's authority. I'm talking about understanding the issue of imputation and condemnation from a legal perspecitive. For God's sovereign decision to impute the blessings/curses of Adam to his progeny to be reconciled by Christ's obedience and subsequent imputation of the blessings He obtained on behalf of His elect we cannot attribute the obedience of Christ to an aspect of His nature that Adam did not have. For His obedience to be contrasted to Adam's disobedience there had to be a commonality. You have attributed Christ's ability to obey the Father to His divine nature, something Adam did not have. For God to legally declare the portion of humanity that Christ represented as justified, Christ's human nature must be without flaw. For us to reconcile the contrast between the disobedience of Adam's human nature with Christ's obedience in His divine nature requires that we purport the irreconcilable.

Adam was capable of obeying God and not sinning.

"Even though God created Adam without sin, he still could not be good."

"Even though man was created without a sinful nature it was and always will be only Jesus Christ who would/could obey God perfectly."

"Even man created without a sinful nature could and would not obey God, only Christ would ever be able to do it."

"What I've learned is that it's because God wanted us to know it was only Christ that could ever obey Him perfectly, we never could even without a sin nature."

"I believe God has revealed that even though Adam was created without a sinful nature and inclined to do good, he still couldn't do it, and that perfect obedience could only be performed by God in the God/Man Jesus Christ."

"Man even in a sinless state with a strong inclination and advantage never to sin could not obey God..."

"He wanted to demonstrate that only His Son, as 100% man, could obey Him..."

These are your words CalvinOwen. Now that I'm thoroughly confused about your position on this, was Adam capable of obedience or not?

What I am hearing indirectly in your comments is why did God put a tree in the garden?

Nope.

Why didn't God stop satan from tempting Eve?

Nope.

Why didn't God create man with the ability to never sin or even be tempted?

Nope.

God bless

CalvinOwen · Dec 13, 2004

Thx for reminding me of what I've been saying, I can certainly understand now why I am confusing you so much.

I am saying Adam had the created ability to obey God, which Adam demonstrated, but because he was not perfect he could not obey Him consistently, which Adam demonstrated. Adam did both, he obeyed God for a time but couldn't keep it up. So it is both yes and no.

On the other hand Christ did both, He obeyed God for a time and kept it up! Only the God/Man Jesus Christ could do it, obviously. So in Him is Yes and Amen!

Why did he do it?

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

on gossamer wings

on gossamer wings

CalvinOwen

Guest

Active Member

Veteran

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

on gossamer wings

Knight of the Cross

CalvinOwen

Guest

Active Member

CalvinOwen

Guest

Active Member

CalvinOwen

Guest

Active Member

CalvinOwen

Guest

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

CalvinOwen

Guest

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

CalvinOwen

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency