What if Adam didn't sin?

[steve7150]

Also, the conscience affirms free will if it ever accuses of sin, because if the will was not free, the conscience would accuse the underlying cause and not the helpless person who lacked the freedom to avoid sin.

Also Romans 1 teaches that moral obligation is self-evident. Moral obligation presupposes freedom of the will. Obligation can not be self-evident unless ability is self-evident.



As i see it the issue is "free will" verses "will" , we all have a will , but i doubt that it's free. From the beginning we had negative impulses built into us , we had Satan around to tempt us and as 1st Peter 1.20 says in every bible translation i've seen, the lamb was either chosen, or foreordained before the foundation of the world suggesting that man's fall was inevitable. The devil blinds the minds of unbelievers according to Paul so this does'nt quite sound like free will to me.
You said the path to righteousness is not through unrighteousness which sounds logical but if you look at how we learn almost anything , it's by contrasts. Contrasting good from evil, love from hate, light from darkness etc , so to have contrasts really be effective we have to experience both sides IMO.

[benstenson]

Was'nt the slaying of the lamb determined before the foundation of the world

I don't know if it really says "before" or not in Greek. Furthermore, I think it is saying the names were in the book from the foundation of the world because there is a second verse like it that does not mention the slain lamb.

What's the difference? ... How else can you interpret "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" to mean anything other than God's foreknowledge of the need for Christ's sacrifice?

When did Adam and Eve sin? At the foundation of the world. That's all I meant by pointing that out. You said you did not think there was much time passed before they sinned. I was just suggesting that "from the foundation of the world" could simply mean from the beginning of the world which is when Adam sinned. But it is not important because the other verse in Revelation says it was the names which were not in the book from the foundation of the world, not that the lamb was slain since then. To me it does not make sense to take those verses two different ways. Nevertheless, even if it did say the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, it could mean from when men first sinned thus needing an atonement as I said above, or it could simply mean that God had already considered the possibility of sin and was prepared to offer His Son as our atonement if it became necessary. In my mind, it seems more likely that the verse is talking about the book and the names.

[Paidion]

Was'nt the slaying of the lamb determined before the foundation of the world so it would seem he had to sin either then or perhaps God may have continually tested him.

Obviously Jesus wasn't literally slain before the foundation of the world. I think we can agree that this passage is saying that the slaying of the lamb was in God's mind before the foundation of the world. But that fact doesn't imply that the event was predetermined and therefore inevitable. It could simply mean that God had in mind a conditional response plan to deal with the possibility of sin. He probably had in mind a myriad of other such plans, some of which never had to become reality because of the free will decisions which people have made throughout the millenia.

[benstenson]

As i see it the issue is "free will" verses "will" , we all have a will , but i doubt that it's free.

I don't see any difference. It is almost redundant to say "free will" in the first place. The difference between the will and the instincts/reflexes is that we have power over the will but do not have power over instincts/reflexes. We do not have the ability to do anything we want but we are free to determine our own intentions. It is our intentions that give moral character to our choices. Without intentions, choices would just be instinctual actions that had no moral character.

From the beginning we had negative impulses built into us

Our desires are not evil because they don't know any better. God gave us desires on purpose so that we would have the opportunity to develop good moral character by ruling over them. This is not a negative thing but a positive opportunity. The ability to experience temptation is a gift that allows us to mature by overcoming temptation. It is like moral exercise. It is for our benefit - that we would succeed, not so that we would fail.

we had Satan around to tempt us

So did Jesus.

as 1st Peter 1.20 says in every bible translation i've seen, the lamb was either chosen, or foreordained before the foundation of the world suggesting that man's fall was inevitable.

It only seems to say that Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world, not that it was foreknown He would have to suffer and die.

The devil blinds the minds of unbelievers according to Paul so this does'nt quite sound like free will to me.

Free will is not the ability to do anything we want, it is the ability to determine our intentions. An unbeliever has no intention of seeking truth. If they did seek truth from the heart then they would find it. The devil does not control a man's intention or else the man would cease to have any moral character at all, whether good or evil.

You said the path to righteousness is not through unrighteousness which sounds logical

That is because it is almost excessively obvious.

but if you look at how we learn almost anything , it's by contrasts. Contrasting good from evil, love from hate, light from darkness etc , so to have contrasts really be effective we have to experience both sides IMO.

Do you think the most effective way God has for teaching us righteousness is by waiting until we rebel against Him? That the effectiveness of God's leading us in righteousness somewhat depends upon sin? That sin makes righteousness better?

It really seems like the existence of sin is being defended in this thread. Is that only because foreknowledge is being defended? I would much rather give up defending [or at least put to the test] my opinion on foreknowledge than to begin defending the existence of sin.

[benstenson]

If [Peter] hadn't failed, he might have preached at Pentecost with pride, and not with humility ... it was a necessary step in the development of Peter's character.

It was not necessary for Jesus to sin to be humble. Likewise Jesus did not think it was necessary for Peter:

"Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation" Matthew 26:41
"Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." Mark 14:38
"Rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." Luke 22:46

I don't think we will ever forget the damaging effects of sin, and it will be a lesson we will one day be glad we learned.

I would be more happy now if I had just never rebelled against God. The Bible says sin is something of which Christians are ashamed, not something they are grateful to have experienced.

Should we be glad that we rebelled against God? Would it not have been better to never have disobeyed Him? Of course it would have been better.

Obedience is always better than sin. Sinning is bad - never sinning is good.

[steve7150]

as 1st Peter 1.20 says in every bible translation i've seen, the lamb was either chosen, or foreordained before the foundation of the world suggesting that man's fall was inevitable.It only seems to say that Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world, not that it was foreknown He would have to suffer and die.

The devil blinds the minds of unbelievers according to Paul so this does'nt quite sound like free will to me.Free will is not the ability to do anything we want, it is the ability to determine our intentions. An unbeliever has no intention of seeking truth. If they did seek truth from the heart then they would find it. The devil does not control a man's intention or else the man would cease to have any moral character at all, whether good or evil.





You used Jesus as an example of why we don't have to overcome sin since Jesus never sinned but we are to be conformed to his image which is a process of overcoming , we stumble always yet we overcome better and better over time. In 1st Peter 1.19 it says "with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish" , which is not just speaking of Jesus per se but of his actual sacrifice. Words like "blood", "lamb", "without blemish or spot" is explicitly referring to his sacrifice foreordained before the foundation of the world.
I'm not defending sin for the sake of sin but that God uses it as a learning tool for us to conquer. It's like a wall we have to learn to climb over, if we never have the wall, we never learn how to climb. Traditionally Christians have been vehement about associating God with sin as if sin has a life of it's own, as if it's shocking and offensive and outrageous to God that man should sin yet God places Eve in a situation where she has no experience overcoming her built in temptations and God sends Satan to test innocent Eve and she fails the test. So God who sent Satan to Eden is outraged and shocked and highly offended yet 1st Peter 1.19-1.20 says Jesus sacrifice was "foreordained before the foundation of the world." Every translation i've seen says "before the foundation" so that suggests God decided what would happen in advance. Foreordained is a different word then "foreknew", it means God had an active role in deciding the outcome. In addition God said "knowing good and evil they have become like us" which sounds like we must know evil or experience evil to eventually become like Christ. The fact that Jesus never sinned does'nt mean God expects us to be like Jesus as soon as we decide to seek God, God knows we all sin and he uses it as a barrier for us to overcome so we can mature. God using evil and sin as a tool for us is found from Adam and Eve all the way through Paul lamenting in Romans 7 how difficult it is to overcome his flesh , yet he can still say "thanks be to Christ" because he understands the value of Christ's gift because of what he went through.

[RICHinCHRIST]

If [Peter] hadn't failed, he might have preached at Pentecost with pride, and not with humility ... it was a necessary step in the development of Peter's character.

It was not necessary for Jesus to sin to be humble. Likewise Jesus did not think it was necessary for Peter:

"Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation" Matthew 26:41
"Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." Mark 14:38
"Rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." Luke 22:46

I agree that Jesus was humble without sin's effects, this is true. But Jesus also had a much closer relationship with the Father which Peter did not have. Jesus was the only Person at that time who knew the Father intimately (matthew 11:27). Peter was an infant spiritually, and I'd even argue, wasn't even born of the Spirit until Pentecost. Therefore, I believe God used Peter's sin to teach him a lesson. He was later ashamed of his sin, which is true of all people and their respective sin, and God was able to use this to humble him. God would have preferred that Peter not sin, but my point was that someone who has a strong tendency toward sin will inevitably fall into pride if they feel they have rarely failed, whether they are judging themselves by their own standard or God's. I was just making the point that Peter might have been susceptible to a greater sin in the future, but God miraculously was able to turn his initial failure around for good in Peter's case. This was true of all the disciples who forsook Jesus. I'm sure it had a profound effect upon their future walk with God, and reminded them to remain humble. So sometimes, I'd argue, even sin can further the purpose of God in someone's life, even though the sin itself is of a morally repugnant nature in the sight of God. Yes, sin is wrong and bad, but God is able to create a greater good out of it.

I don't think we will ever forget the damaging effects of sin, and it will be a lesson we will one day be glad we learned.

I would be more happy now if I had just never rebelled against God. The Bible says sin is something of which Christians are ashamed, not something they are grateful to have experienced.

Should we be glad that we rebelled against God? Would it not have been better to never have disobeyed Him? Of course it would have been better.

Obedience is always better than sin. Sinning is bad - never sinning is good.

I agree. I would love to be able to say that I have never sinned. But this is obviously impossible, for everyone falls short of God's glory. I'm not grateful that I have rebelled against God, but I am grateful for God's response and restoration of my rebellion. Therefore, I am glad that I will be able to remember where I came from for all the ages of eternity. Not because of the sin itself, but because of the lesson God has taught all His people through it. God obviously felt it was worth His time and effort to put up with us sinners... He could have just consumed the whole universe at the time of Adam's sin. My main point was that God has a greater purpose in mind, one that we will be glad to have been a part of. I think of Ephesians 2:

One of God's main reasons for saving us is so that He can point to us in all future ages as monuments of His grace. We are basically "trophies" of His grace. All created beings of the past (angels or otherwise) and all created beings of the future (which I'm assuming God will create) will be able to point to redeemed humanity as a demonstrative example of God's infinite grace. We don't deserve to be redeemed, but yet God did it anyway! That's a wonderful thing. I personally think, although I have no scriptural support for this theory, that God will resurrect us to an even greater existence than pre-fall humanity. I've heard it often said that God will restore the initial conditions of the world pre-Fall. However, we must obviously have a greater knowledge than pre-Fall Adam because we will have experienced the damaging effects of sin in the past. Therefore, we will have the memory of the "higher form of knowledge" which God never intended for us to have in the first place (Genesis 3:22). However, God will have redeemed us from that fact's damaging effects. Therefore, in the resurrection, we will recall what it was like to have had that knowledge, but we will either supernaturally no longer have it, or at least prefer not to act upon its damaging influence. Or, another possibility is that we will still retain that same knowledge (due to the memory of our past lives) without its damaging effects. I think, then, that our future condition will be more special than the pre-Fall condition. We will 'know just as we are known' (1 Cor 13:12)... and I tend to think that means something greater than that which Adam initially experienced pre-Fall.

It just seems that God would do something like that. He could take the mess we made of the world, and turn it around for an even greater eternal purpose. Therefore, from that perspective, sin was a necessary "learning tool" God used to instruct us to bring us to a higher plane of existence. I could be wrong, but who's to say that if we are brought back to the original state of man (pre-Fall) we won't make the same mistake again, thereby starting this cycle all over again?

[RICHinCHRIST]

It really seems like the existence of sin is being defended in this thread. Is that only because foreknowledge is being defended? I would much rather give up defending [or at least put to the test] my opinion on foreknowledge than to begin defending the existence of sin.

It may seem that way, but I doubt that me or Steve7150 are intending to praise the existence of sin. We are simply just saying that we believe God can use sin for His own purposes, and can turn it around for good. The Scriptures clearly teach this:




I think that point Peter makes in Acts is very pertinent. What is the worst sin ever committed? The crucifixion of the perfect Son of God. What is the greatest thing God has done for us? Saving us through Christ's propitiation. Therefore, the greatest sin has brought about the greatest peace for the redeemed people of God. God can turn sin around for good, and I look forward to the day when that is fully realized in every aspect of existence (2 Peter 3:13).

I'm willing to question my own views of foreknowledge. In fact, I have been considering the open theistic view myself. I still struggle with accepting it 100%, but I think it has some positive aspects that really exalt the infinite intelligence of God more accurately than a Calvinistic or Arminianistic foreknowledge view. Even if God just considered the crucifixion of Christ in His mind, like Paidion earlier suggested, that would not disprove the fact that God can use sin for a greater purpose, and to our feeble minds, even make it look like sin was a necessary step to bring about that greater purpose.

BenStenson, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are coming to this conversation with the attitude of the elder brother in the story of the prodigal son. Can you imagine how much closer the prodigal son was to his father after his return? Was it not his sin that brought him to that place of thankfulness and rejoicing in the presence of his father? In the same way, I know my own sin, although it has brought about unfortunate fruit, has drawn me nearer to God and has given me a deeper understanding of His grace. There are so many examples in the Scriptures of God's compassion and grace toward sin. Remember that Jesus wept over Jerusalem... yes, Jesus was sometimes fed up with the people saying, "How long must I bear with this generation!" and so on... but God's mercy and grace is great. Grace is just a supernatural kind of thing... difficult to understand with mere human reason.

I'm not sure if you advocate a view of "Christian perfectionism", but I know that if I believed in such a doctrine I would fall into pride in my own achievements of overcoming sin. I'm in no way advocating that sin is healthy or good, but I'm trying to look at the issue objectively, realizing that God has a purpose in allowing sin to have come in the world and subsequently perpetuate. If He did not, then there would be no reason for Him to patiently await all people to learn the lesson that sin is supposed to teach us. We still have not fully learned that lesson in my opinion, but it will be more fully realized in the resurrection.

[Paidion]

How else can you interpret "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" to mean anything other than God's foreknowledge of the need for Christ's sacrifice?

Easy. I interpret it to mean that God had a plan to deal with sin IF it arose among mankind. He made provision for every possible choice that man could make. But He created man in His image — with libertarian free will like God had. He didn't cause events to occur according to a pre-planned blueprint. It's not a big super movie that's being played out on earth today. If it were, we would not be responsible for our wrongdoing, for we could not do otherwise. Likewise, God having forordained all things would have been the author of evil. That's blasphemy, isn't it?

If all of mankind had never sinned, then "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" would not have had to have been slain in actuality in the early part of the first century.

[RICHinCHRIST]

How else can you interpret "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" to mean anything other than God's foreknowledge of the need for Christ's sacrifice?

Easy. I interpret it to mean that God had a plan to deal with sin IF it arose among mankind. He made provision for every possible choice that man could make. But He created man in His image — with libertarian free will like God had. He didn't cause events to occur according to a pre-planned blueprint. It's not a big super movie that's being played out on earth today. If it were, we would not be responsible for our wrongdoing, for we could not do otherwise. Likewise, God having forordained all things would have been the author of evil. That's blasphemy, isn't it?

If all of mankind had never sinned, then "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" would not have had to have been slain in actuality in the early part of the first century.

I see what you mean. Like I said earlier, I've been open to considering the open theistic view because I think it might exalt the intelligence of God much more thoroughly than the foreordained Calvinist view and the foreknowing Arminian view. I think what Ben Stenson said earlier is also a possibility: That the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world means simply that God determined to sacrifice Christ after sin entered the world. In other words, we can interpret "from the foundation of the world" as referring to the initial Fall of Adam and Eve... it's a generalization and is not literally referring to the moment in time when God laid the earth's foundation, but rather to the very early moment when sin entered the world... when looking back at the timeline, the Fall was so early on in God's created order that He's basically referring to the Fall as the foundation of the world. I think there may be validity to that due to the symbolic nature of Revelation.