What if Adam didn't sin?

Man, Sin, & Salvation
User avatar
benstenson
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by benstenson » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:12 pm

Sin cannot be inevitable because:

1. Sin is a choice

That sin is a choice is self-evident regardless of whether it is denied in theory. It is a necessary assumption of a moral choice. Any time a person weighs opposing motives and resists temptation their mind is affirming that their will is free. Any time a person feels pleased with or ashamed of their own choice, their mind is affirming that their will is free. If we could not trust the testimony of the human mind regarding this then we could not trust our minds at all.


2. God could only make sin avoidable, not unavoidable

God did not have any role at all in deciding there would be sin in the world. He created a world that had the potential for everlasting perfection. He could not have done any less. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. A sinful world could not be an inevitable result of God's planning. He could not have created a world in which sin would be inevitable. He could only have created a world in which sin was completely avoidable. He could only have created a world in which uninterrupted perfection was completely possible.

Objection: The atonement of the Lord was foreordained, foreknown, and inevitable
steve7150: 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.
There is a difference between the context of a phrase and the actual subject of the phrase. While the Lord's atonement is clearly part of the context of the foreknowing/foreordaining, that does not make it the actual subject of the foreknowing/foreordaining. I do not know much about ancient Greek but the subject appears to be Jesus Christ Himself – for example in the ESV it is translated “He was foreknown”. It only seems to say that Jesus was foreknown (known before) – not that Him shedding His precious blood was inevitable. Nevertheless, even if it was referring to the Lord's atonement and not to the Lord Himself, it would only imply (as Paidon said) that God foreknew how He would provide our atonement in the event that it became necessary, not that sin itself was inevitable. Sin can not be inevitable because it is a choice.
steve7150: Foreordained is a different word then "foreknew" .... God had an active role in deciding the outcome.
The word in 1Pet 1:20 is proginosko – to know before. For example, Paul told king Agrippa that the Jews proginosko'ed Paul from the beginning.

Objection: Sin is necessary for good
steve7150: It's like a wall we have to learn to climb over, if we never have the wall, we never learn how to climb.
Sinning is not a prerequisite of holiness. Being evil is not a prerequisite of being good.
God is necessary for good. Sin is not necessary for good. God can produce unimaginable good without sin's “help”. A world with sin is not better than a world without sin. It is not better if people do evil so that God's grace can abound.

Objection: God works good through sin
steve7150: God knows we all sin and he uses it as a barrier for us to overcome so we can mature.
Maturity does not require sinning. Sin is not a prerequisite of maturity. We can only mature by not sinning. Sin does not result in maturity. It holds us back from maturing. Sinning and maturing are mutually exclusive.
steve7150: I'm not defending sin for the sake of sin but that God uses it as a learning tool for us to conquer.
Whether sin had to happen and whether God works good through it are two different questions. I am not saying that God cannot work good in spite of and even through people's sins. I am only saying that sin can not be inevitable/unavoidable. God would much rather work good through obedience than through disobedience. He can work more good through obedience than through disobedience.

Objection: We needed to sin so we could know good and evil like God
steve7150: 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.
Knowing good and evil does not require sinning. If “knowing” evil means experiencing sin, then experiencing the lies of the serpent, without sinning, would be “knowing” evil. On the other hand, if knowing good and evil refers to a more developed conscience or moral discernment, then sin is not at all necessary for this.


3. God always commanded obedience

God did not want Adam and Eve to eat that fruit, He wanted them to overcome temptation. If He secretly wanted them to eat the fruit, His command to not eat it would have been insincere. If God had a secret will that was opposed to His revealed will then we could not trust anything He says. If God secretly wanted disobedience when He commanded obedience then we could not trust Him. Isaiah 45:19 says “I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

Objection: God is not shocked or surprised by sin
steve7150: Traditionally Christians have been vehement about associating God with sin as if sin has a life of it's own
It is not sin that has a “life of its own”. It is sinners that have a life of their own, which God gave them, not to use for sin. Sin is contrary to God's will, not in accordance with His will.
steve7150: as if it's shocking and offensive and outrageous to God that man should sin
Being aware of the possibility of something does not always prevent the shock of it happening. God regretted His own choice to create people when He saw how sinful they became.

Objection: God allowed Adam and Eve to be tempted when they had no experience
steve7150: yet God places Eve in a situation where she has no experience overcoming her built in temptations
The habit of making righteous choices had to start with a single righteous choice. The habit of overcoming temptation had to start with overcoming some temptation. God could not have created a new person who already had experience. Like I said earlier, I don't know about Eve's accountability, because Paul said she was deceived but Adam was not. But, in the case of Adam, it is not as if refraining from a single fruit tree out of an entire garden of fruit trees is unreasonably difficult. I don't know how much easier God could have made the command and have it still qualify as a moral choice.

Objection: God sent the devil to test Eve when she was not smart enough to resist
steve7150: God sends Satan to test innocent Eve
I don't know where you get idea that from. Nevertheless if she was not smart enough then she did not fail to love God with all of her mind and strength. If she was unable to obey, due to being mentally overwhelmed, then she was not morally accountable for her choice, and testing her would only prove that she was exactly the way God created her – nothing more. If Eve could not have overcome the deception, then she did not sin in the strict moral sense of the word, even though she did transgress the “letter” of the command. Either sin is avoidable, or it can not exist at all. Sin can only exist where it could have been avoided. Otherwise it would not be a choice.


4. Jesus proved sin is avoidable by living without it
Jesus has a will and experienced temptations just like us but He chose not to sin.

Objection: God doesn't expect us to live like Jesus
steve7150: The fact that Jesus never sinned doesn't mean God expects us to be like Jesus as soon as we decide to seek God
Jesus lived the way that God sincerely wants everyone to live. Everyone can live in moral perfection as Jesus did. He loved God with all of his strength. Anyone who loves God with all of their strength is being morally perfect like the Lord. It does not matter if we have more or less strength than He had. The important thing is that we use all of whatever strength we have presently have. Since the law requires all of our strength - not more than all of it – therefore the very wording of the law ensures our uninterrupted ability to obey it.
steve7150: we stumble always yet we overcome better and better over time.
Jesus said “Go and sin no more” not “go and sin less and less”. We don't have to stumble morally. The Bible says God is able to keep us from stumbling. Peter said that if we do the things he said to do then we will definitely never ever stumble.
"out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19)

User avatar
benstenson
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by benstenson » Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:39 pm

RICHinCHRIST wrote: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 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 don't know whether anyone else beside the Lord has lived without sin or not, except for children who died before they were able to choose, and presumably millions of angels. But I would not be perplexed by it if there are others who lived without sin. Other than that qualifier, I agree with what you were saying here.
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?
We will always have free will because that is God's plan. There are some very creative ideas about what life was like for Adam and Eve in the garden. One preacher even suggested that perhaps they could travel through unknown dimensions like in the StarTrek stories. Other people say that the laws of physics changed when Adam sinned. I don't agree with any of that. Adam's physical body was mortal before and after he sinned. Adam also had free will before and after he sinned.

I don't know if it can be proven, but it seems most likely to me that God would have eventually caused Adam's mind to mature to the point where he understood good and evil. I expect God would have eventually allowed Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit after proving themselves by being faithful with the limited child-like knowledge they had at first. They had no human parents, so it makes sense to me that God would prepare them for maturity by giving them a very simple and easy command to obey first.

I definitely agree that the resurrection will be far more glorious than our present state as 1Cor 15 talks about.
"out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19)

User avatar
benstenson
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by benstenson » Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:59 pm

RICHinCHRIST wrote:We are simply just saying that we believe God can use sin for His own purposes, and can turn it around for good.
I agree with this. I have only been objecting to the idea that it makes sense for sin to be inevitable because it could make greater good possible - as if it would somehow not be as good if sin was totally avoidable. I'm just saying sinlessness was God's plan, desire, and expectation - and that it would have been perfect. Sin is a total tragedy in light of God's sincere plan to have perfection. Take the devil for example. He seems to have been given great authority, but he turned from holiness to sin and began to ruin the whole world! That is totally tragic! This was the only world God made and the devil began to ruin it. What if he had just used his power to serve God and to help the world? It would have been so good. But his sin can never be undone - he already stole from God what God deserved, a perfectly obedient creation. He can never give this back to God because it is already done. And most people followed right after the devil. It is really tragic!
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.
I'm glad you are not infallible. It is so much easier to trust people when they are willing to test their beliefs. Learning that the future is open has been a real blessing to me in many ways. I'd be glad to try to help with any questions that you ever have about this topic. I had to deal with a ton of objections in my own mind before understanding this, and even after being convinced I still had a lot of bible verses to reexamine.
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.
I don't think I understand what you mean.
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.
I would rather we all obeyed the Father so that the Lord had not had to suffer for us. I would rather we obeyed God and Jesus hadn't needed to be spit on and hit and mocked because of our unreasonable field-trip through sin. How grateful I am for Him submitting to all of that does not change the fact that I would prefer if no one ever mistreated Him.
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.
The bible says we should be perfect as He is perfect, holy as He is holy, righteous as He is righteous, pure as He is pure, and to walk as He walked. It is not wrong to be happy about obeying God. It is really a joy to obey Him. It is good to be happy for ourselves also, but not at the expense of others. Paul said he was broken-hearted for his people and could have even wished that he could go to hell instead of them!

It would be impossible to overcome sin and have selfish pride at the same time. But people who don't believe that it is possible to stop sinning are not susceptible to certain temptations because they are in a different frame of mind. People who don't believe we can stop sinning will be more likely to err on one side - so the devil will use certain tactics against them. But when a person believes they can do all things through Christ and that God is able to keep them from stumbling - now the devil can tempt them in new ways that he could not use before. Likewise, the previous tactics may not be as effective on this person anymore.

I figure a lot of people are just barely avoiding tortured legalism simply by pretending they can't stop disobeying God or that God won't judge them if they continue in disobedience. As soon as they admit the truth, now the devil can try new temptations on them to keep them in sin. That's why we need to have faith and to pray and study so that we can arm ourselves against every temptation.
"out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19)

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by Homer » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:26 am

Sin can not be inevitable because it is a choice.
What about sins of ignorance where there is no conscious choice to sin? Sins of ignorance are still sin and to avoid them entirely would require flawless knowledge of God's will in every situation.

User avatar
RICHinCHRIST
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by RICHinCHRIST » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:28 pm

benstenson wrote:
RICHinCHRIST wrote:We are simply just saying that we believe God can use sin for His own purposes, and can turn it around for good.
I agree with this. I have only been objecting to the idea that it makes sense for sin to be inevitable because it could make greater good possible - as if it would somehow not be as good if sin was totally avoidable. I'm just saying sinlessness was God's plan, desire, and expectation - and that it would have been perfect. Sin is a total tragedy in light of God's sincere plan to have perfection. Take the devil for example. He seems to have been given great authority, but he turned from holiness to sin and began to ruin the whole world! That is totally tragic! This was the only world God made and the devil began to ruin it. What if he had just used his power to serve God and to help the world? It would have been so good. But his sin can never be undone - he already stole from God what God deserved, a perfectly obedient creation. He can never give this back to God because it is already done. And most people followed right after the devil. It is really tragic!
I see what you mean. Your logic makes sense. You are correct to say that sin had to be a choice for Adam and Eve, their will was free at that time. But I'm not completely on board with you when you say "sinlessness was God's plan, desire, and expectation". It was definitely His desire, that is true. He desired them to obey. However, to say it was His "plan" might be a stretch. To say it was His "best plan" might be true. He obviously had a plan in mind, however, if they were to sin. You probably agree with that, so it is a matter of semantics. However, when we say that it was God's "expectation" for them not to sin.. I'm not so sure. I suspect that God expected them to sin. You give the example of the devil's fall as an illustration. I don't necessarily accept that Satan is Lucifer (from Isaiah 14), nor do I necessarily accept him as a fallen angel. I think it's a possibility that God created Satan the way he is, in order to test people's motives and wills. Jesus said the devil was "a murderer from the beginning", thereby implying that he was always evil, unless Jesus was speaking hyperbolically. If this view is true, then it may not be the case that God "expected" Adam and Eve to not sin, but that He actually expected the opposite. Although I agree that Adam and Eve's failure was their own, and that they chose to sin against God, I believe God may have had a plan from the beginning to allow Satan to influence Eve to the point of deception (which the NT tells us happened). It was then on Adam to make the choice. He clearly failed the test, against God's wishes. I guess it really does come down to the matter of God's foreknowledge. I still hold to the Arminian view of foreknowledge so I'm not completely convinced that it was not in God's ultimate plan to allow sin to enter the world due to the circumstances He Himself created and allowed. We might have to surrender this thread to the unsearchable mind of God:

Until I am utterly convinced of the open theism view, I cannot affirm that what was to happen was not in God's mind from the beginning. And even if I was convinced of that view of foreknowledge, it's possible that there is some type of cohesion between an open future and God's foreknowledge... What I'm saying is, is that we may never know completely exactly how God's mind works in this regard.

In regards to the rest of your comments, I agree mostly with what you said, so I need not comment. However, I do not believe it is possible to absolutely never sin again. There are blunders that we make without full awareness (as Homer noted), and James said "we all stumble in many ways", including himself in that category. Although perfection in holiness is the goal for the Christian (2 Cor 7:1), I don't think that the road to that goal can be achieved without any failures at all. I think God even allows us to fail sometimes (to teach us), when He could have intervened or given us more strength in order to endure.

User avatar
benstenson
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by benstenson » Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:45 pm

Homer wrote:
Sin can not be inevitable because it is a choice.
What about sins of ignorance where there is no conscious choice to sin? Sins of ignorance are still sin and to avoid them entirely would require flawless knowledge of God's will in every situation.
The bible says that love fulfills the law. It does not say that omniscience fulfills the law. Omniscience is not a prerequisite of love. Love is an intention of the will. Omniscience is a state of the intellect. Moral intention requires some amount of knowledge, but it does not require all possible knowledge. Love fulfills the law with or without omniscience.

Maybe you were referring to the unintentional sin laws in Numbers 15 and Leviticus 4 and 5. I believe these are symbolic as the rest of the Levitical law. They do not indicate that mistakes are actually evil. They do not indicate that God requires us to love Him with MORE than all of our mind. They are only symbolic. If they were not symbolic, then they would logically have to presuppose a willful ignorance that occurred through deliberate neglect. But I don't think that is the case. I believe they are symbolic of willful ignorance, symbolic of the self-imposed mental darkness of living in sin.

"he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth." (John 12:35)
"he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes." (1John 2:11)
"they knew God ... but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:21-22)
"out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19)

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by steve7150 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:37 pm

Objection: God sent the devil to test Eve when she was not smart enough to resist
steve7150: God sends Satan to test innocent Eve
I don't know where you get idea that from. Nevertheless if she was not smart enough then she did not fail to love God with all of her mind and strength. If she was unable to obey, due to being mentally overwhelmed, then she was not morally accountable for her choice, and testing her would only prove that she was exactly the way God created her – nothing more. If Eve could not have overcome the deception, then she did not sin in the strict moral sense of the word, even though she did transgress the “letter” of the command. Either sin is avoidable, or it can not exist at all. Sin can only exist where it could have been avoided. Otherwise it would not be a choice





Benstenson,
According to the book of Job , God invited Satan to test or really torment Job whom he called "a righteous man" so why would Eve's testing be any different with Satan just appearing in the garden. Either it's a coincidence or God sent Satan or God just allowed it. The first choice is slim to none and considering the gravity of the situation do you really believe God just simply just allowed Satan to interfere with the destiny of man?
According to Isa 54.16 "I created the WASTER to destroy."
According to scripture Eve was deceived yet she did disobey God so then did she really have "freewill"? If she had freewill why did God send Satan (my assessment) , because God is "declaring the end from the beginning." Isa 46.10
It's interesting that the tree that had the knowledge of good also had the knowledge of evil, it seems you can't have one without the other.

User avatar
benstenson
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by benstenson » Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:58 pm

RICHinCHRIST wrote:to say it was His "plan" might be a stretch. To say it was His "best plan" might be true.
That's what I meant. The preferred outcome of His plans.
I don't necessarily accept that Satan is Lucifer (from Isaiah 14)
Same here.
I think it's a possibility that God created Satan the way he is
Then he would not deserve punishment and God Himself would be the cause of the works of the devil that he sent Jesus to destroy. This is like the fireman who secretly starts fires to become a hero by putting them out.
Jesus said the devil was "a murderer from the beginning", thereby implying that he was always evil, unless Jesus was speaking hyperbolically.
Even if the devils very first moral choice was selfishness rather than love, it could not mean that it was a result of the way he was created. Moral choice, by definition, must be free from the laws of cause and effect that govern one's nature. Sin is an intention of the will, not an involuntary attribute of one's nature. If sin was an involuntary attribute of one's nature, it would not actually be sinful and deserving of punishment. It would be just as unreasonable to blame the devil for his nature, if he was created to be malicious, programmed that way, as it would be to blame a person for the color of their skin. No one can be blamed for that which is not their own choice.
If this view is true, then it may not be the case that God "expected" Adam and Eve to not sin, but that He actually expected the opposite. .... I guess it really does come down to the matter of God's foreknowledge.
I agree, it does hinge on that. How can you genuinely expect something when you already know it logically can't happen?

"he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes ... why, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?" (Isa 5:2-4)
We might have to surrender this thread to the unsearchable mind of God ... it's possible that there is some type of cohesion between an open future and God's foreknowledge...
Doing something contrary to what is known in advance would cancel the definition of knowledge. Knowledge is a belief that matches reality. It is not possible to make reality contrary to knowledge, because it would not be knowledge then, just a mistaken belief. Saying that it is possible for people to choose other than what they are foreknown to choose, is saying it is possible for the knowledge of their choice to turn out not to be knowledge at all. There is a contradiction between exhaustive foreknowledge and free will. If we can not depend on recognizing contradictions as a means of testing doctrine, then we have no means of testing doctrine. Contradictions always indicate the presence of untruth.
I do not believe it is possible to absolutely never sin again.
If mistakes are sin then it is not possible. But if sin is transgression of God's law, and God's law requires all of our strength, not more, then by definition, it is always possible to not sin, in each individual situation, and in the whole. The bible says that we should reckon ourselves dead to sin. We have permission to expect to never sin again if we plan to obey God always. But we should not think we are incapable of sinning and become careless or proud.
There are blunders that we make without full awareness (as Homer noted)
This is a really popular topic! In my most recent posts I have tried to address this as best as I can.
and James said "we all stumble in many ways", including himself in that category.
I don't think James was sinning in many ways. I think that would be taking the word "we" too literally. What he is saying is really a reproach - we can tame all these huge animals but can't tame our tiny little tongue. It is a reproach. He is warning them not to be hypocritical teachers because they will have greater accountability. How awful it would be if he himself was teaching them in the same hypocrisy he was condemning. He said, "the wisdom that is from above is ... without hypocrisy." So how could he be warning them against being hypocritical teachers while he was sinning "in many ways" and blessing God but "cursing men" with his tongue?
I think God even allows us to fail sometimes (to teach us), when He could have intervened or given us more strength in order to endure.
The bible says that He will never allow us to be tempted beyond what we can handle. He will always provide us with a way to not sin. (1Cor 10:13) This verse was actually on a billboard for a while here on I-90 in Massachusetts. It was really encouraging.
"out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19)

User avatar
benstenson
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by benstenson » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:32 pm

steve7150 wrote:Either it's a coincidence or God sent Satan or God just allowed it. The first choice is slim to none and considering the gravity of the situation do you really believe God just simply just allowed Satan to interfere with the destiny of man?
Giving creatures power and freedom is taking the risk that they will misuse that power and freedom. Giving power to the one we call the devil was taking a risk that he could abuse that power. It is not possible to give any power and freedom to the creatures without taking the risk that they will use it for evil and destruction instead of good. Risk and vulnerability is an essential aspect of relationship. If God wanted a universe where only exactly what He wanted could happen, then He would not have taken the risk of giving freedom to men and angels. But without freedom God could not have a people who would love Him and love each other. He would only have creatures that do whatever He programmed them to do, like instinct-dominated animals.
According to Isa 54.16 "I created the WASTER to destroy."
According to scripture Eve was deceived yet she did disobey God so then did she really have "freewill"? If she had freewill why did God send Satan (my assessment) , because God is "declaring the end from the beginning." Isa 46.10
I try not to say this very often because people say it all the time, but I think you are applying those verses out of context. Especially the second one. That is a classic verse that Calvinists always quote as if it refutes self-evident human freedom.

Like I said, I don't know if Eve was morally accountable for her choice or not. She definitely transgressed the "letter" so-to-speak of the command. But I don not know if she did so out of voluntary selfishness, or innocently out of deception. It is hard for me to imagine it being completely from deception, but look at the punishment that God gave to the serpent and to Adam. In both cases he used logic to connect the punishment to their actions: to the serpent, "Because you have done this". To Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife". But to Eve, nothing, just a statement of how things were going to be. No logic. No "because of you". Someone could argue that the fact that God pronounced hardship for Eve means that it must be punishment. But I don't see how this can be proven. That's why I can't say one way or the other on it at this point.

Nevertheless, if Eve was totally deceived - mentally overpowered - then she was not to blame for transgressing the "letter" of the command. No one can be blamed for the weakness they were created with. But if she allowed herself to be deceived when she actually knew better, which seems unlikely based on what Paul said, then and only then would she be to blame for her choice.
"out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19)

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: What if Adam didn't sin?

Post by Paidion » Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:06 pm

Theoretically, it is not the case that sin is inevitable, because we are creatures of libertarian free will. But practically, sin IS inevitable, because we have inherited a nature from our first parents, Adam and Eve, which has a tendency to sin.

By way of analogy, if you keep tossing a die, it is practically inevitable that a 6 will eventually turn up. But theoretically you could toss that die a hundred times a day for the rest of your life without a 6 turning up.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology”