What if Adam didn't sin?

[steve7150]

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 46.10I 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.




Every verse has a context but the question is whether the above verses are truths or principals that apply in general or are limited to only those scenerios. I think these statements from God are to big to be limited only to it's narrow context.
If we have so called freewill i think it's a limited freewill which is influenced by what God decides is beneficial for us which may very well include "evil." When man engages in evil it's sinful , because sin is "missing the mark" or violating God's will but if God uses evil it is his will and not sinful because God will use evil for a greater good. In God's hands evil is simply a learning tool for us although we may not understand it.
God "foreordained BEFORE the foundation of the world" 1st Peter 1.19-20 the precious blood of Christ.
God placed the tree right in the middle of the garden to catch Eve's eye,
God made the tree attractive,
God placed the desires and passions in the humans,
and yes, God placed Satan in the garden for the explicit purpose to tempt Eve , since this was "foreordained" and God already made preparations.

It was not Eve's eating of the fruit that was her first sin because Jesus said "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts" Matt 15.19. BTW i'm not a Calvinist but i think God has a plan that overides our "freewill."

[RICHinCHRIST]

Then [the devil] 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.

I don't have a problem necessarily with this scenario. Why can't God create a being that intentionally tests and influences people to sin? Perhaps God did have foreknowledge of everything that would occur, and therefore He intended to reveal His glory through creating this scenario and proving Himself victorious through it in order to teach His human creation. I don't think this belittles the character or wisdom of God.

No one [including the devil] can be blamed for that which is not their own choice.

If God chose to create Satan as a sinful evil being with the sole purpose of testing people, then God reserves the right to punish sin and punish the devil regardless, in my opinion. I believe it's possible that God could create a sinful being yet be completely set apart from sin simultaneously. God is not therefore the author of evil, but rather just proving to His creation the difference between His absolutely good nature and the evil nature of sin, which is, fully demonstrated in the character of the adversary.

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?

Perhaps you are interpreting "many ways" in the sense that he's sinning "many times". I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he is saying that there are many possible ways in which we can stumble, and that sometimes we do end up stumbling in those various ways. He's not advocating a hypocritical sinful lifestyle ("oh well, I sinned again, but it doesn't really matter because its inevitable") but rather just observing the reality that we are not perfect yet, and that there is a possibility of us stumbling in a variety of contexts. However, you may be right, because the church fathers vehemently believed that if one sinned after being baptized that they had immediately lost God's favor and were cut off from the Church. If that's true, then I will only be able to tremble before a holy God saying, "be merciful to me a sinner!" and be willing to accept the righteous punishment from His hand if this is the case. I am open to the possibility of purgatory, something I had never been open to before until I had begun hearing arguments for the universal reconciliation position. Perhaps it is a reality... and I will willingly surrender myself to the will of God if it is true.

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.

I agree with that verse, but sometimes practically it seems that God allows us to be tested so far to the point that the way of escape is sometimes difficult to see. I realize the way I worded it seems like a contradiction to that verse... but sometimes I think God allows a temptation to bring us to the place where there is only a simple decision of the will that remains, and due to our tendency toward sin, sometimes it seems that the weakness of our flesh gives a strength to sin that is difficult to overcome. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think God knows sometimes that we will fail, but instead of giving us an easier way of seeing the way of escape, He allows us to fail, knowing that we will indeed fail. I think of Jesus' comment to Peter, "I pray that your faith will not fail"... Jesus didn't say, "I pray that you won't sin against me".. God knew in advance that Peter would indeed sin, but Jesus prayed that the guilt and shame of his decisions wouldn't drive him to despair and despondency but rather that his faith would be strengthened (thereby implying God would teach him and strengthen his faith through his failure... and therefore giving an opportunity to strengthen the rest of the Church through that same failure ("when you return, strengthen your brethren").


By the way, I didn't know you live in Massachusetts. I no longer live there, but I lived in Boston for 5 years and attended college there. It's a very dark area, I'm thankful God has planted you there!

[steve7150]

BTW unlike a Calvinist who might believe Eve sinned even though God manipulated her behavior , i think that God influenced her behavior to the point where her will is not free , yet still capable of choosing life.
However since God has this plan (IMO) that we must experience evil then possibly if Eve passed the test, God may have tested her again and again.

[dseusy]

What if Adam didn't sin?

Is that similar to asking,

"What if I didn't sin?"?

All have sinned and fallen short of His glory (Romans 3:23). Does that mean we could not have chosen otherwise? Not sure, but I'm sure I would need Jesus either way.

"I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died" Romans 7:9

I was going on my merry way until the commandment came... then my merry way became the lawless way and my 5 year old (guesstimate) habits became sin and sin put my spirit to death.

If the law showed up and I instantaneously changed my habits (keep in mind, with the maturity of a child- in which foolishness was bound in my wicked heart) I would still need Christ to get to the Father.

No one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

Does God need plans A through Z, as if He is waiting to see what we will do before He plays His next card? If He knows the future (which I'm convinced He does... fulfilled prophecy would be an obvious clue) He only needs one plan. He hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh hardened his own heart. God is just and there is no favoritism with Him, and Jesus spoke in parables for a very interesting reason.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9

"For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." Romans 11:30-36

I'm guessing we aren't going to figure this all out, but we can encourage each other in our current predicaments... our sinfulness.

If Adam could have avoided sin, and everyone else could have avoided sin, we could have heaven right here, on earth. There would be nothing for God to restore and we would not need His mercy, right?

If that were the case, He could have made us spiritual beings, pre-stamped holy children in His realm, and we would have never known evil.

Perhaps things have gone as they have because of the great good that will come of the way things are. I believe He is perfectly in control (without squelching our wills or desires... if we desire evil, we get it... if we desire Him, we get Him- but it depends on Him who grants His mercy to whom He chooses- Romans 9:16) and I am comfortable with this, despite my "pains of childbirth" (Romans 8:22-23).

[benstenson]

I am sorry that I was away so long.

God is "declaring the end from the beginning."

I think these statements from God are to big to be limited only to it's narrow context.

Then it is basically your unsupported opinion? God is a 100% enemy of sin. God doesn't declare sin from the beginning, that would be blasphemous to even think.

When man engages in evil it's sinful , because sin is "missing the mark" or violating God's will but if God uses evil it is his will and not sinful because God will use evil for a greater good.

Right and wrong don't originate in God's will. God can not change the fact that love is right, and selfishness is wrong. Right and wrong originate in God's knowledge, not His will. The essence of right and wrong is self-evident and unchangeable, not arbitrary and changeable. Loving is the right way for God to be, not just man. God has moral obligation, not just men and angels.

God "foreordained BEFORE the foundation of the world" 1st Peter 1.19-20 the precious blood of Christ.

Didn't you read my response to this?

God placed Satan in the garden for the explicit purpose to tempt Eve , since this was "foreordained" and God already made preparations.

steve7150, what do you think James meant when he said that God does not tempt anyone? That God does tempt people but He does it by using the devil and then washes his hands like Pilate? So he technically does not tempt us?

BTW i'm not a Calvinist but i think God has a plan that overides our "freewill."

I don't know what that means. The primary characteristic of free will, in my mind, is that we have the ability to love, or the ability to be selfish. All of our smaller choices will have to follow one of those two primary choices. We are free to love, or free to be selfish. Our will is free to do either one. We are not free to fly to mars, nor free to do everything we want. But we are free to be loving with whatever ability we have, or to be selfish with whatever ability we have.

[benstenson]

Then [the devil] 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.

I don't have a problem necessarily with this scenario. Why can't God create a being that intentionally tests and influences people to sin? Perhaps God did have foreknowledge of everything that would occur, and therefore He intended to reveal His glory through creating this scenario and proving Himself victorious through it in order to teach His human creation. I don't think this belittles the character or wisdom of God.

I don't understand why that is cool with you?? It would be morally pathetic and dishonorable, not glorious. It is like pathetic advertising where they have to invent a problem that you don't even have in order to trick you into buying their product. A fireman who starts fires to "save" people by putting out the fire that HE made would just be a loser. There is no way that the ways of a loser could be God's ways! I think you should really rethink this one because you must just be missing something here. There is no way being the cause of moral evil can be justified.

No one [including the devil] can be blamed for that which is not their own choice.

If God chose to create Satan as a sinful evil being with the sole purpose of testing people, then God reserves the right to punish sin and punish the devil regardless, in my opinion.

That would be like drinking heavily when you are pregnant and then beating your child for having fetal alcohol syndrome! What an awful thought. Jesus says, have some common sense, if tons of evil mothers don't even act that way, you think God will? No way. It would be wrong for God as well as man. God would not.

I believe it's possible that God could create a sinful being yet be completely set apart from sin simultaneously.

This is the Pontius Pilate washing his hands thing again. It is really a contradiction. The sinful being is whoever the underlying cause of the sin is. If the devil had no chance to be loving and righteous then God would be the underlying cause of the sin. That would make the creator sinful and not the devil. The devil would be innocent and his creator would be the sinful one. God would not do that.

the church fathers vehemently believed that if one sinned after being baptized that they had immediately lost God's favor and were cut off from the Church. If that's true, then I will only be able to tremble before a holy God saying, "be merciful to me a sinner!" and be willing to accept the righteous punishment from His hand if this is the case.

I don't understand. You mean some of the early Christians taught that any sin after baptism was unpardonable? I don't think that is biblical at all. Though I did used to be afraid of that, like many people. And I know people who teach that now. But that is not what I read about in the bible. I'm glad you are humble about it though! The bible says God's mercy is for those who fear Him!

I am open to the possibility of purgatory, something I had never been open to before until I had begun hearing arguments for the universal reconciliation position.

I don't know where people get this universal reconciliation stuff from. To me it completely flies in the face of reason. However, it would make complete sense if sin was truly unavoidable. If we couldn't help but end up under "condemnation" then God would actually owe it to us to retract His unjustified judgment. I heard of one man who even said as much about the atonement, he roughly said "I figure God owed it to us because we couldn't help but sin".

I think of Jesus' comment to Peter, "I pray that your faith will not fail"... Jesus didn't say, "I pray that you won't sin against me"..

Jesus woke Peter up and urged him to pray so he wouldn't fall into temptation. God can't force people to be sinless, it was Peter's choice. Jesus urged Peter to be sin free, God had already agreed to let the devil test Peter - not because it was God's initiative or anything like that, but we know the devil challenges God right to His face, in the sight of all the angels, and God has to decide how to respond to the devils challenges in a way that will have the best possible influence on everyone. It is pretty amazing how, in the case of Job, God didn't even seem to hesitate or shrink back from the challenge even though it was certainly not His preference.

God knew in advance that Peter would indeed sin, but Jesus prayed that the guilt and shame of his decisions wouldn't drive him to despair and despondency but rather that his faith would be strengthened (thereby implying God would teach him and strengthen his faith through his failure... and therefore giving an opportunity to strengthen the rest of the Church through that same failure ("when you return, strengthen your brethren").

Who knows, Peter might have killed himself if Jesus had not said that ahead of time. If the future was already set in stone then it would be a contradiction to say Peter had freedom in the matter. If he had no freedom then he did not sin at all - in which case it would not apply to the sin topic. But if he had no freedom in the matter why would Jesus urge him to pray to avoid temptation? If it was already set in stone then the Lord would have been totally insincere to urge Peter to overcome.

Did you read earlier in the thread when I explained why set-in-stone foreknowledge of choices is a straight-up contradiction to free will? I could try to explain it again if it was not understandable. It really contradicts the whole idea of knowledge to say that there is freedom/possibility in a situation that is concretely foreknown. The contradiction is so obvious that it is real easy to miss it and just go in circles thinking about it.

By the way, I didn't know you live in Massachusetts. I no longer live there, but I lived in Boston for 5 years and attended college there. It's a very dark area, I'm thankful God has planted you there!

I hope I can have a positive influence. I sure have a lot to learn. I day dream about being a public/street evangelist sometimes. There is a real need for it.

The bible says we have need of confidence in order to persevere. We NEED to believe the bible when it says God is able to keep us from stumbling. We NEED to believe the bible when it says God FAITHFULLY provides a way out of temptation ALWAYS and NEVER lets it get TOO HARD for us. That's really what the bible says! Isn't it awesome? I sure think it is awesome.

[benstenson]

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.

That's what Alan said. He said refraining from sin is..

a practical/moral impossibility (not an absolute/metaphysical impossiblity, but a practical/moral impossibility-- there's a difference b/t those two....but I don't have time to explain that now

How can we compare (even analogously) tossing dice to free choice? Dice obey laws of cause and effect. Free choice does not. It is two totally non-analogous categories. Free choice has no "odds" associated with it. There is no statistical science to free choice. No 50/50 average or sociological bell curve that inevitably shows up over time. Free will allows for pure and unbroken righteousness from beginning to end just as much as it allows for sin. Statistics do not warrant doctrinal conclusions regarding matters of free choice. Statistics only warrant solid conclusions in science because we trust the apparent laws of cause and effect that God has established over creation. Since there are no causative laws ruling over free choice, there can be no solid/scientific conclusions based on statistics. If statistics had veto power over free will then Jesus could not have overcome the way He did.

[benstenson]

God influenced her behavior to the point where her will is not free , yet still capable of choosing life.

What does that mean? It sounds like saying a contradiction to me. "not free but capable"? doesn't free mean capable? what does free mean if it doesn't mean capable?

However since God has this plan (IMO) that we must experience evil then possibly if Eve passed the test, God may have tested her again and again.

There are evil fathers that push their children harder and harder and harder until they fail. God is not like that.

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
I think these statements from God are to big to be limited only to it's narrow context.Then it is basically your unsupported opinion? God is a 100% enemy of sin. God doesn't declare sin from the beginning, that would be blasphemous to even think.



You have a habit of extending my statements into areas i did'nt cover, another words answering statements i did'nt actually make. Your judgment on blasphemy would cover all Calvinists i think, and also all who believe God created Satan to be Satan from the beginning since he is the "evil one." So if God did create "the evil one" which is what many believe or if God actually created either evil or the conditions leading to evil it makes no difference to you that it's for a greater good does it?
After all sin is sin and nothing good can possibly come out of it, man has nothing to learn, man should immediately be like Christ, Eve should have resisted her impulses and also resisted Satan. After all she should have known better and God expected her to and God was outraged, so outraged that he simply punished all of humanity because he was simply outraged.
The bible says God did indeed declare the end from the beginning and also that Christ was made perfect through suffering (Heb 12.10) and if we are to be like Christ we must suffer too and if Eve did'nt sin we would'nt experience suffering. That we must go through this did'nt just happen , God has willed our journey and it includes evil and suffering and joy all the things we must learn by experience. God's will prevails, it trumps any freewill we may have. Paul said Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers, where is the freewill in that statement , or was Paul exagerating Satan's power or was Paul only referring to the unbelievers in his day?

[Paidion]

How can we compare (even analogously) tossing dice to free choice? Dice obey laws of cause and effect. Free choice does not. It is two totally non-analogous categories. Free choice has no "odds" associated with it. There is no statistical science to free choice.

While I agree with you that dice have no free will, the point of the analogy is that some things which are theoretically possible are practically impossible. This is the part which the likelihood of sin and the tossing of a 6 using a die, have in common.

The same may be said about the reconciliation of all people to God. People have free will, and thus it is theoretically possible for some people to hold out forever and refuse to be reconciled to God. But this is not practically possible because of the infinite time factor. Sooner or later each person will choose to submit to God rather than continue in a state of pain and terror.