What if Adam didn't sin?

[Homer]

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.

And given infinite time, we are all sure to rebel and sin in heaven. Then, just like Origen believed, we will be kicked out to a lower place so that we can be recycled.

[darinhouston]

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.

And given infinite time, we are all sure to rebel and sin in heaven. Then, just like Origen believed, we will be kicked out to a lower place so that we can be recycled.

This question has bothered me a long time -- though it doesn't completely answer the question, I like Steve's response (that we will not fall if we have no tempter). I would like to think that our hearts will be completely renewed in eternity while they are only partly renewed now, and that without a tempter, the taint we now have of original sin will not lead to such rebellion no matter how long it takes. An eternity may result in every possible choice being made over time, but if rebellion's a matter of the heart then the choice we make won't necessarily be rebellious. It may well be that all and any choices are permitted in eternity, and won't be considered sin because they will all be made in the Spirit. There's a song with lyrics suggesting we have a broken cup and though we can go to the "waterfall" (of Christ) and fill it up, it leaks out of the cup because it's broken and we have to continue to have it refilled. In eternity, our "cup" won't be broken, and so I don't think our hearts will go the wrong way no matter how long it will take (that's my hope, anyway). Otherwise, God loses because all would eventually rebel.

[benstenson]

You have a habit of extending my statements into areas i did'nt cover, another words answering statements i did'nt actually make.

I sometimes point out and answer the logical results of an idea. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. The logical implications of God having made sin inevitable is blasphemous. I don't mean that you are personally intending to dishonor God. I only mean that the idea that God made sin inevitable (made a world where sin was inevitable) would make the Holy One the root cause of sin. The idea that God made a world in which sin was inevitable is blasphemous. Please tell me if I am misrepresenting you so I can correct myself.

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?

This is like "shall we sin that grace abounds" and "let us do evil that good may come" which are evil ideas. There is an infinite difference between hardship/suffering/trials on the one hand, and selfishness/sin/evil on the other hand. I have no problem with difficult trials being used to mature people, but that is totally different from child molestation, abortion, murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, and things like that.

After all sin is sin and nothing good can possibly come out of it,

I didn't say nothing good can come out of it. If the good that comes out of sin justifies the existence of sin then sin is no longer sinful, but beneficial and honorable. But sin is not honorable. My main argument is that sin (even by definition) is not and can not be inevitable. Also, that a world without sin is better than a world with sin. A holy world is better than a sinful world.

man has nothing to learn,

Of course we have to learn. We just don't need sin to learn.

man should immediately be like Christ,

People should mature without making evil choices just like Jesus matured without making evil choices.

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.

I don't believe God punished other people because of what Eve did. Did you understand what I was saying about Eve being deceived? I'm not totally convinced she was accountable like Adam was.

The bible says God did indeed declare the end from the beginning

Tons of things have happened that God never declared.

if Eve did'nt sin we would'nt experience suffering.

This is not logical. If some amount of suffering is beneficial in order to mature us then it does not have to happen through sin. We chastise children before they are accountable and capable of sinning. Sin is not a prerequisite of maturity.

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?

The devil does not blind people's minds apart completely from their choice. Paul said in Romans 1 that everyone knows about God just from nature, without the Bible. Belief is natural, by birth. Unbelief is unnatural and rebellious. Unbelief is a choice. If someone chooses unbelief then the devil can blind them further. But if the person was not capable of having a change of heart, then they would not even be morally accountable and therefore not even sinning.

[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 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.

I've thought about this lately and I think there is something we are missing. Remember that in the New Testament the word for temptation or testing is the same Greek word. Therefore, God creating the devil to be a tempter or tester from the get-go wouldn't be God ordaining moral evil. It would simply be that God uses the devil in order to test people for the purpose of revealing the genuine character and free will decisions of a person. If one chooses to give in to the temptation, and fail the test, it is not God who caused this moral evil, but rather the person caused it by failing to keep God's standard.

Consider this passage:

Here God is said to test people by the means of false prophets. Now why would God do such a thing? In order to see if they love Him with all of their heart. He already knows, in my opinion, if they do, but I think He tests people so that it might be proof to human beings in the day of judgment. Their actions will prove what was in their hearts. Therefore, He allows us to be tested so that it becomes evident, not only to Him, but also to us, what is in our hearts.

If God created Satan in order to test people, it is not God who is the cause of evil, but rather the evil desires of people draw them away and they fail the test.

[benstenson]

Remember that in the New Testament the word for temptation or testing is the same Greek word.

I think I've heard that before. I don't think that means the word has the same meaning regardless of the context. The word can't have the same meaning in every context because God does test people but He does not tempt people. Tempting implies the hope that the person will fail, or the intention that they will fail. Testing does not imply that. The fact that there are two different ideas here does not hinge on what language we speak. Ideas come before language. Truth comes before Hebrew and Greek etc.

Therefore, God creating the devil to be a tempter or tester from the get-go wouldn't be God ordaining moral evil.

It depends. It is really two different ideas: testing vs tempting. There is nothing wrong with testing. The devil would not be a sinner if he was just testing people according to God's will. It would also be wrong to punish him for doing what he was made to do. But if God created the devil and programmed him to tempt people, then the devil would just be a machine or tool through which God would be tempting people. In that case God would really be the one tempting, not the devil. No one ever arrested a firearm that was used to commit a crime, they only arrest the person who had control over the firearm. So the idea that God created the devil to tempt people to sin is not right. Tempting and testing are not the same idea even if a single word in Greek happens to have both meanings.

It would simply be that God uses the devil in order to test people for the purpose of revealing the genuine character and free will decisions of a person. If one chooses to give in to the temptation, and fail the test, it is not God who caused this moral evil, but rather the person caused it by failing to keep God's standard.

I understand. If it is just testing then I could agree. But then the devil would not be acting contrary to God's will, and it would be unjust to punish him or talk as if he is evil. Also if he was simply preprogrammed to act a certain way then he would not even be morally good or bad at all.

God is said to test people by the means of false prophets. Now why would God do such a thing?

Again distinguishing between tempting vs testing easily reconciles this passage with James 1:13. It is not God who makes people be false prophets and idolatry promoters. God does not and can not make people evil. But if someone already is evil then God can manipulate circumstances so that their evil behavior ends up being used as a test for others. It does not mean that God initiated the evil behavior, nor does it mean that He needed someone evil in order to test people with. This is totally different than the idea of God designing a being who would be preprogrammed to tempt people to sin. There is a huge difference there. In the case of false prophets the situation is avoidable because the people do not need to be evil false prophets in the first place. So their creator is not responsible, but simply working with the situation that has arisen. But in the case of an "engineered tempter" for lack of a better term, the situation would not be avoidable because the creature was actually designed and programmed to tempt others. Therefore the creator would be ultimately responsible.

The difference between temptation and testing seems to lie in the intention of the tempter or tester. If the intention is that a good person would turn to sin, then it is temptation. But if the intention is to see if a person is trustworthy, then it is testing.

He already knows, in my opinion, if they do, but I think He tests people so that it might be proof to human beings

God has explicitly told us that He tests people in order to know if He can trust them or not:

Deu 8:2 ..the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know
what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
Deu 13:3 ..the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all your soul.
2Chr 32:31 ..God left him, to try him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
Ge 22:12 ..now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

It seems obvious to my mind that those are not poetic or figurative passages that don't mean what they say. I know there are such passages in the bible, but if these are not plain statements of the truth then I would not know how to recognize a single literal statement in the whole bible.

I believe, since God values genuine relationship more than He values predictability, He chose to make creatures who are free and thus unpredictable. I think it is so awesome that God chose to make Himself vulnerable in this way - giving us the power to actually disobey Him, not so we would disobey, but so our obedience would be free and our love genuine. This is quite a risk that God took to make us like Him. And our response to this gift determines to a large extent whether the risk was worth it or not - so that is a lot of responsibility we have been given, and a lot of opportunity to prove to God that the risk was not taken in vain.

[Homer]

I believe, since God values genuine relationship more than He values predictability, He chose to make creatures who are free and thus unpredictable.

But then wouldn't God be continually taken by surprise and be acting reactively? That doesn't seem to be the picture of God that the scriptures present.

[benstenson]

While I agree with you that dice have no free will

I don't think I was able to communicate my point there very well because it was not simply that dice don't have free will. Ultimately the fact that dice are bound by laws of physics means there is only one possible outcome of any given die roll. We don't calculate the outcome, but the outcome is inevitable, and there are no other possibilities. But with choice there inherently can not be inevitability, there must be other possibilities. Where inevitability enters, freedom and possibility exits. Whatever is inevitable is not free. Whatever is free can not be inevitable.

the point of the analogy is that some things which are theoretically possible are practically impossible.

In reality, a thing is either possible or not. Theories aside, something is either possible in reality or not possible in reality.

A correct theory of what is possible or not, should match the reality of what is possible or not. If the theory of what is possible does not match the reality of what is possible, then the theory must be incorrect.

This is the part which the likelihood of sin and the tossing of a 6 using a die, have in common.

Statistics do not actually prove anything regarding possibility vs impossibility. They only state what has happened. They do not make any statement about why something happened, whether it had to happen, or whether it has to happen again in the future. The assumptions through which we view statistics should be determined by the nature of the case. If we have reason to believe that the case is governed by necessity then we have reason to form a theory about possibility/impossibility. But if the nature of the case is not governed by necessity, but has to do with free will, then the nature of the case forbids us from forming theories that include inevitability.

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.

If universal repentance is inevitable then it is not a free choice. Whatever is inevitable can not be otherwise by definition.

Sooner or later each person will choose to submit to God rather than continue in a state of pain and terror.

That's possible but I don't think it relieves God of the obligation to uphold their deserved eternal punishment. In my understanding it is the value of that which the law protects that determines the necessary punishment - not the actual damage done, nor the time it took to transgress, or any other thing. God's law protects the highest possible well-being of Himself and the whole universe. Therefore the punishment must match this value which transgression tramples on. If God's law protected something of contingent, relative, and measurable value then the punishment would have to be measurable as well. But universal happiness or well-being is not contingently or relatively valuable, it is intrinsically and absolutely valuable. I don't believe God's happiness is measurably valuable. I believe it is immeasurably valuable.

[steve7150]

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?
The devil does not blind people's minds apart completely from their choice. Paul said in Romans 1 that everyone knows about God just from nature, without the Bible. Belief is natural, by birth. Unbelief is unnatural and rebellious. Unbelief is a choice. If someone chooses unbelief then the devil can blind them further. But if the person was not capable of having a change of heart, then they would not even be morally accountable and therefore not even sinning.



Well Paul simply said "the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers", he did'nt add because they want to be blinded, that was your addition. Also if unbelievers have so called "free will" why not give them the opportunity to repent , since God is long suffering and patient. What is the purpose of the devil blinding them , when they may still through their "free will" come to believe later in their life?
The fact is almost everyone knows God exists yet few look for him , so why not? Unbelief is rebellious i agree, but unfortunately it is natural, very natural. It was natural for Eve to sin because she already had an inclination to in her heart and mind, and just to make sure God sent Satan to close the deal.
We do have "volition" or the power of choice but our will is not "free" because it is not unencumbered or uninfluenced. We have a will that is inclined toward sin, we have a will influenced by Satan , our will is not free. Sin does not require a free will, the bible never says that, that is an assumption. Sin is indeed choosing to be out of God's will by our choice, whether that choice is encumbered or influenced or blinded by Satan. Is that justice? Does'nt sound like it but in the end God will be just.

[benstenson]

I believe, since God values genuine relationship more than He values predictability, He chose to make creatures who are free and thus unpredictable.

But then wouldn't God be continually taken by surprise and be acting reactively? That doesn't seem to be the picture of God that the scriptures present.

I don't know what you mean by acting reactively. God reacts to us, but He does not react irrationally if that is what you meant. He is not ruled by His emotions like some weak-hearted sissy or whatever. I'm just guessing at what you meant. God is very emotional, more so than we are I think, but He is not ruled by His emotions. He is not overcome by them and controlled by them. He governs His will in accordance with His intellect, not in utter submission to emotion like selfish people do.

Jesus marveled at one man's faith. He even asked if anyone would have faith when He returns. God can be surprised in good ways if He has lowered His expectations (note: not commands, expectations). Likewise, He can be disappointed with people when He was expecting better from them - for example in Genesis 6 when God regretted His choice to make people. That shows disappointment and shattered expectations.

[benstenson]

Homer, I also think that if someone's coolness or toughness depended on everything always being predictable then it is not as cool or tough as someone who could govern an unpredictable and even rebellious world for 6000 years 24/7. The latter case represents someone who is much less of a sissy or control-freak in my opinion. I am WAY more impressed with the latter case. It really blows my mind. I think truly God has been a servant to this world as Jesus showed by washing the disciples feet. There is no way I could handle God's responsibility ... what an understatement.