Why did he do it?

[Asaph]

Reformationist,

I can see further discussion is pointless. We will never see eye to eye on even the second chapter of Genesis. I do want to thank you though for the opportunity to present what I have up to this point.

Have a great day,
Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

Sorry I haven't responded earlier, I've been out of town.

No problem. Glad to have you back.

We all know Adam obeyed God and then one day disobeyed Him. I'm not qualifying my position by saying the obvious, I'm only restating the obvious to avoid confusing you anymore.

Okay.

Why did God command Israel to keep His Law when He knew they couldn't or wouldn't? This doesn't seem fair either.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. Is God not holy? Does God not have the right to demand of us perfect obedience regardless of whether we have a disposition that makes that impossible? Is God obligated to, now, give us the necessary grace that we may overcome our fallen nature and obey?

Why did God create man knowing He was going to disobey Him

The only answer I can give you is the only one I think the Bible gives: to glorify Himself.

couldn't God have created Adam to ensure He would never disobey Him like He did the elect angels?

Of course. But I don't think you are right about the elect angels. After the fall of satan and his minions God confirmed those who remained obedient in grace. Now they are incapable of rebellion in the same way that we will be incapable of rebellion when we are confirmed in grace when we are glorified. The angels, like Adam, were created without a sinful nature and with no inherent proclivity to rebel.

I believe strongly God created Adam to be saved by Jesus Christ and therefore the fall was predestined and according to God's will.

I completely agree. That does not remove Adam's culpability for his act of cosmic treason. He has suffered the wrath of God, though not the full wrath of God, for his iniquity. I know that whatsoever comes to pass is predestined by God and according to His will. The issue of the post is in our shared acknowledgement as reformed Christians that God's predestination is not determinism or fatalism and that Adam sinned of his own volition. God's sovereign predestination of the events that transpired, including Adam's act of disobedience and the resultant Fall, are upon the head of humanity, not the predestination of God.

That's why Adam was not created to be perfect, like the elect Angels were.

I am still failing to see your point. Are you simply saying that imperfect creations sin by necessity? To make that profession we must apply post-Fall attributes to pre-Fall man, i.e., Adam did not become a sinner because he sinned. He sinned because he was a sinner.

Sorry but I still don't see that represented in the Gospel.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist,

I can see further discussion is pointless.

I guess that depends on what your motive was in discussing it in the first place. If you measure the value of the conversation solely by whether I am converted to your way of thinking then you're right. If, however, your goal was to come together as brothers and seek to gain a greater understanding of the Gospel then I doubt it could ever be "pointless."

It all depends on what your goal was.

We will never see eye to eye on even the second chapter of Genesis.

Well, never's a long time. You may be right though. I don't know.

I do want to thank you though for the opportunity to present what I have up to this point.

My pleasure. Thank you for sharing it.

God bless,
Don

 

[Asaph]

I guess that depends on what your motive was in discussing it in the first place. If you measure the value of the conversation solely by whether I am converted to your way of thinking then you're right. If, however, your goal was to come together as brothers and seek to gain a greater understanding of the Gospel then I doubt it could ever be "pointless."

It all depends on what your goal was.

Perhaps I worded that too harshly. I had several motives for the discusion. First I wanted a Calvinist perspective on what I'm seeing in the first three chapters of Genesis. Secondly, you began this post with a question that I could have postulated an answer for. Thirdly, in prior discussions with you I have found you to be generally fair, hardheaded sometimes, but generally fair...

In this instance, you repeatedly denied even the possiblity that there may be an understanding of scriptures I presented that differs from your own. While you may very well be correct, the discussion can progress no further under those conditions. That's why further discussion is pointless.

But I do thank you for the time you have given and the opportunity you have afforded me here.

Be blessed,
Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

Thirdly, in prior discussions with you I have found you to be generally fair, hardheaded sometimes, but generally fair...

LOL! Can't argue the hardheaded label.

In this instance, you repeatedly denied even the possiblity that there may be an understanding of scriptures I presented that differs from your own.

That's not exactly true. In post #75 I stated, "So I'm clear, are you simply asking if there's a possibility that this was the first situation in which Adam could choose to disobey so his obedience is of no real substantiativevalue in this discussion? If so, sure." I just wanted biblical support for your position, which I don't think you definitively provided.

While you may very well be correct, the discussion can progress no further under those conditions. That's why further discussion is pointless.

Okay.

But I do thank you for the time you have given and the opportunity you have afforded me here.

Again, it was my pleasure. You are a very focused Christian who does a good job of presenting your position. I am more than willing to continue considering your view if you can show from Scripture that there is a reason to do so. What I cannot do is consider viable any position on Scripture that requires that I isolate a portion of the Bible from the rest of God's personal revelation. You repeatedly stated that I was taking into account post-Fall information in a pre-Fall discussion. While I acknowledge the virtue in distinguishing between the two I cannot, in good conscience, do so if it causes me to view God in such a way as if He was a different God who dealt differently with His creation prior to the Fall than He did after the Fall. That I think Scripture is abundantly clear on.

God bless

 

[CalvinOwen]

Fairness has nothing to do with it. Is God not holy? Does God not have the right to demand of us perfect obedience regardless of whether we have a disposition that makes that impossible?

So when you make this statement you realize that fairness has nothing to do with the fact that Adam could have been created imperfect and God could have expected him to obey all His Laws, and that would be ok?

"The problem I have with your position is simple. If you are right then God demanded of Adam something that He never created Adam with the ability to do and then punished him for it. However, if we apply this reasoning to pre-Fall man then we have a God who demands of His creation something that he cannot accomplish and acts as if there is no reason why His creation should not have been capable of obeying."---Reformationist

The only answer I can give you is the only one I think the Bible gives: to glorify Himself.

Yes God created Adam imperfect, predestined to sin so He could glorify Himself in Jesus Christ by rescuing man from the fall.

Of course. But I don't think you are right about the elect angels. After the fall of satan and his minions God confirmed those who remained obedient in grace. Now they are incapable of rebellion in the same way that we will be incapable of rebellion when we are confirmed in grace when we are glorified. The angels, like Adam, were created without a sinful nature and with no inherent proclivity to rebel.

Of course this is all speculative, there is no Scripture to support this as there is none to support Adam was created to be perfect.

I am still failing to see your point. Are you simply saying that imperfect creations sin by necessity?

I am saying that the reason imperfect creatures sin is because they are imperfect, which is your question for this thread.

 

[Reformationist]

So when you make this statement you realize that fairness has nothing to do with the fact that Adam could have been created imperfect and God could have expected him to obey all His Laws, and that would be ok?

CO, I have already explained why I believe it is rightoeus of God to demand of post-Fall man perfect obedience when he is incapable of complying. That, in fact, is the very reason for this thread. God did not require anything of Adam that Adam was inherently incapable of complying with. Adam was capable of perfectly obeying God's law. To deny this is to claim that God's promise to reward Him for perfect obedience was a vain promise.

Yes God created Adam imperfect, predestined to sin so He could glorify Himself in Jesus Christ by rescuing man from the fall.

You know, I think I'm losing sight of what your position on the OP is in light of all of this discussion on the viability of Adam being perfect. Your header to this post is actually an answer. You said, "I am saying that the reason imperfect creatures sin is because they are imperfect." So, now we trace that back to its logical source and this is what you have claimed: God made Adam imperfect with no prefatory, justifiable reason for doing so and then demanded of him perfect obedience, something that was, since his inception, impossible for him to do and then found him guilty of failing to perfectly obey even though the reason he failed, according to you, is because of a deficiency in his nature that God had created him with. Sorry but that, in my limited understanding of your opinion, does not reconcile with the righteous character of God.

Of course this is all speculative, there is no Scripture to support this as there is none to support Adam was created to be perfect.

I do not know that there is "no Scripture to support it" but if you are interested I will try to research it to see if there is.

I am saying that the reason imperfect creatures sin is because they are imperfect, which is your question for this thread.

Two questions. Who made Adam with a nature that was incapable of perfect obedience? And, secondly, what was God's basis for creating Adam with a nature that was not only suseptible to sin but guaranteed to sin?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Trojan4Christ]

Free will...

 

[Reformationist]

Free will...

So Adam sinned because he had free will? Is disobedience an invariable result of having free will? If so, does that mean that we are guaranteed to sin when we go to Heaven or do you believe we will lose our free will? Also, does not the Father have free will? Why doesn't He sin? Didn't Christ have free will? Why didn't He sin?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[CalvinOwen]

Two questions. Who made Adam with a nature that was incapable of perfect obedience? And, secondly, what was God's basis for creating Adam with a nature that was not only suseptible to sin but guaranteed to sin?

Two answers. God. Because He is the potter and we are the clay.

 

[Reformationist]

Two answers. God.

Okay.

Because He is the potter and we are the clay.

CO, I understand the point you are trying to make. I also want you to know I'm not questioning God's authority to do with His creation as pleases Him. The reason your position has no merit, in my opinion, is not because God doesn't have the authority to do as you contend but because it is contrary to God's nature to persecute for no reason.

Make no mistake. If God created pre-Fall man with an inherent proclivity to sin and then blamed him for sinning it would be unjust.

God bless

 

[Asaph]

Reformationist,

Haven't you ever wondered why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't just called the tree of the knowledge of evil?

Man, I know it bugged me for years before I finally figured it out.

Asaph

 

[CalvinOwen]

CO, The reason your position has no merit, in my opinion, is not because God doesn't have the authority to do as you contend but because it is contrary to God's nature to persecute for no reason.

God's not a persecutor, He's the Potter!

It is God's nature to love Jacob and hate Esau before they have done good or evil. This position in Scripture has no merit either. As a matter of fact, the following entire defense of God's Sovereignty by the Apostle Paul is a position of no merit because it defends God's hatred of Esau "for no reason."

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Romans 9:11-14

Here the Apostle Paul is arguing against those who think God is unfair for creating and hardening Pharaoh for the sole purpose of demonstrating His wrath. The Apostle is trying to nip in the bud those who might think God is "persecuting for no reason."

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Romans 9:19-21

 

[Reformationist]

God's not a persecutor, He's the Potter!

It is God's nature to love Jacob and hate Esau before they have done good or evil. This position in Scripture has no merit either. As a matter of fact, the following entire defense of God's Sovereignty by the Apostle Paul is a position of no merit because it defends God's hatred of Esau "for no reason."

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Romans 9:11-14

Here the Apostle Paul is arguing against those who think God is unfair for creating and hardening Pharaoh for the sole purpose of demonstrating His wrath. The Apostle is trying to nip in the bud those who might think God is "persecuting for no reason."

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Romans 9:19-21

But this entire analogy is based on post-Fall man, not pre-Fall man. The point being made in Romans 9 is that God has all authority to create one vessel for honor and another for dishonor but His ultimate purpose is not made hollow by their lack of self-willed rebellion. The issue at hand here is that post-Fall man IS created with a bent toward rebellion. Pre-Fall man was not. If you claim that he was then we are right back where we started with post-Fall man only there is no justifiable basis for Adam being held accountable for the state in which he was created. You see, you claim a misnomer to be true when you state that God loved Jacob and hated Esau "for no reason." There was a reason. The reason just wasn't based on something of merit in them, as the Arminians claim. God's "love" for Jacob is not an emotional referrence. It's an active referrence. All it means is that, on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice, God did not act toward Jacob in a manner dictated by the wrong done against Him. When the Bible says, "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" it simply meanst that God gave Jacob that which he most needed to be reconciled, i.e., forgiveness, while He withheld that same forgiveness from Esau. Neither deserved it but because God is the Judge and has the authority to extend His salvitic grace to whomsoever He chooses we, as His creation, have no authority to question not getting that which we didn't deserve.

Point being CO, God did have a reason to hold Jacob accountable for sin whether he had personally sinned or not because, in Adam, all sinned and fell short of the glory of God. There was no precursor to the sin of Adam, at least not one that Adam was held accountable for, nor was Adam created with a sinful nature, so his accountability is based on his adherance to the covenant of works that God had established with him. As you have stated, their relationship was one of full communion. There was no obstacle between them. If, as you contend, God created Adam with a nature that already had an inclination to disobey then they could not, and would not, have had such a blessed communion, for what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? If Adam already had a nature inclined to rebel then that is a sinful nature.

All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the imputation of corruption via the sin of Adam is only justifiable if Adam's nature did not preclude the possibility of consistant and everlasting obedience. Unless Adam was capable of perfect obedience, and that consistantly, then I do not understand how it is justifiable for God to hold Adam, and thus all mankind, accountable for the sins of a sinful creation, especially when it was the nature that God had created him with.

I'm not attacking your understanding. I just don't understand it. If your's is the correct interpretation then I, too, wish to believe it. I'm only asking that you do not become put off by my lack of understanding your point of view.

God bless

 

[CalvinOwen]

You see, you claim a misnomer to be true when you state that God loved Jacob and hated Esau "for no reason." There was a reason.

I'm not attacking your understanding. I just don't understand it. If your's is the correct interpretation then I, too, wish to believe it. I'm only asking that you do not become put off by my lack of understanding your point of view.

I am not put off at all, but pls understand that it's not my claim or what I stated, it's what the Apostle Paul claimed and stated. He said God loved one and hated the other before they were born. Before they did good or evil! And then Paul gave the reason for this love or hatred, His election.

This is a principle that God apparently works under before He creates anyone. I only ask that you apply your understanding of it to Adam because it also applied to Adam before he was created.

 

[Reformationist]

I am not put off at all, but pls understand that it's not my claim or what I stated, it's what the Apostle Paul claimed and stated. He said God loved one and hated the other before they were born. Before they did good or evil! And then Paul gave the reason for this love or hatred, His election.

CO, I know exactly what Paul says and you are wrong, or at least your wording is wrong. God's election of Jacob over Esau wasn't the reason for His love or hatred. Election was His act of love. As I said before, biblical love is giving the recipient of your actions what they most need to be conformed to the image of Christ. Not to say that His love toward Jacob is limited to election but the point is, His act of election was the love that Paul spoke of, or at least part of it. God's love is not an emotion. It's an action. So, when Paul said, "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" he means "Upon Jacob I have conferred the blessings of a son, upon Esau I have not." Bottom line, election, or reprobation, is not the basis of His love or hatred, it is the result of His love or hatred.

This is a principle that God apparently works under before He creates anyone. I only ask that you apply your understanding of it to Adam because it also applied to Adam before he was created.

I know that God elects unto salvation prior to creation but, with regard to our conversation, it is theologically shaky to apply the same elective concepts to pre-Fall man as post-Fall man because they are in two entirely different states of disposition toward God. I have no idea what God's ultimate disposition toward Adam was because the Bible does not say. Adam's ultimate disposition isn't really the issue here so I'd rather not cloud the waters. Anyway, I still don't see the point you're making with election.

God bless

 

[CalvinOwen]

I know that God elects unto salvation prior to creation but, with regard to our conversation, it is theologically shaky to apply the same elective concepts to pre-Fall man as post-Fall man because they are in two entirely different states of disposition toward God.

What you are missing I think is it is One God and He never changes pre or post fall, old or new testament, Adam or Esau.

Scriptures teach God elects then He creates. God elected Adam to fall, plain and simple. I think this is offensive to many and that's why they do not understand why Adam fell.

 

[Reformationist]

What you are missing I think is it is One God and He never changes pre or post fall, old or new testament, Adam or Esau.

CO, I'm not saying God changes. I'm acknowledging that man changed. I think we are starting to go in circles. I still fail to see how you can justify the position that God created Adam with an inherent inclination to disobey but not a sinful nature. The inclination to disobey is, itself, sinful and sin procedes from the heart of a man. If the heart is sinful then the man sins, no exceptions. Adam was not created with a sinful heart, was he?

Scriptures teach God elects then He creates.

Okay. I don't see how this is pertinent to the conversation but if it means anything I agree.

God elected Adam to fall, plain and simple.

And what does "God electing Adam to fall" entail? What I mean is, unless you're contending that God forced Adam to disobey I do not understand what you mean by "God elected Adam to fall."

I think this is offensive to many and that's why they do not understand why Adam fell.

That may be the case for some people. I'm not one of them. At this point I just don't understand what you mean by "God elected Adam to fall" and how He brought that to pass.

God bless

 

[CalvinOwen]

That may be the case for some people. I'm not one of them. At this point I just don't understand what you mean by "God elected Adam to fall" and how He brought that to pass.

I'm glad to hear that, so you do believe God elected Adam to sin and fall before he was created?

 

[Blackhawk]

I'm glad to hear that, so you do believe God elected Adam to sin and fall before he was created?

If an old timer can jump in here for a moment... I think at least one problem with your position here CO is that you are making God the cause of Adam's sin. It seems to me that for you that by God electing Adam to sin that God caused Adam to sin. This is so because God made it so Adam had no choice whether he could sin or not. Remember that Adam is not like the rest of us. As Reformanist has rightly stated he lived pre-fall. (part of his life) So he had no Sin or nor one else that was a represenative for all of humanity before himself. He was that represenative. So if God created Adam with a sin nature or with a propensity to sin without a reason then God is the cause of Adam's sin and he should be held responsible for it.

However I do not believe that this occurred. God gave Adam a choice. He could of not sinned but instead he chose to sin. Now it is true that God knew that he would sin and it in his eternal and sovereign plan that Adam did sin but I do not believe that God forced Adam to sin. So one can say that God did not elect Adam towards salvation or that he elected him to damnation but that in no way means that God made Adam sin.

This is true also for you and me and everyone else post fall. God did not make Pharoah sin in anyway. He just chose to withold his grace (part) to him. So Pharoah did what his human nature lead him to do and that was sin. God used Pharoah and his own sin nature to do his (God's) own will. But again God in no way made it so pharoah had to sin. Adam sinned and thus we all have a sin nature.

So God does not make us sin. Mankind has made it so that we sin. It was in God's plan that we did sin and God put Adam in the garden knowing that he would sin and knowing that how his creation was he would sin. But he did not make it so Adam had no other choice but to sin.

I do believe in a more deterministic God than many people do but I think your view of God rules out any free choice that any human including Adam has everhad the ability to have and thus man cannot be held responsible for his own actions.