What if Adam didn't sin?

[RICHinCHRIST]

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.

I agree with you. I don't think every instance of the word refers to both temptation and testing as if they are synonymous concepts. It's interesting to read James 1 though. It seems that "temptation" is the only proper use of the word in that chapter, for why would James switch his use of the word to a different meaning? Yet, mostly every translation I've seen translates the word differently in James 1:3 in that context (except KJV). Anyway, that's a rabbit trail...

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.

Perhaps this is why some Universalists see the sovereignty of God in such a way as this (in that even the devil will be reconciled some day). I see what you mean though... it logically makes sense.

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.

Perhaps you're right. It's possible still that it is man's lusts which draw him away to begin with (Jam 1:14), but then Satan comes along and encourages man to go further and give birth to sin. Then it's not actually God tempting man through Satan, but man is tempted by his own lusts, but then when he is in the valley of decision, he must choose whether he will obey the light or the darkness. Therefore the testing of Satan is not temptation in that case but rather a real test of one's devotion to God. They were drawn away by their own lust into temptation, and then brought to the place where they needed to choose the good or choose the evil. Satan is there whispering, "choose the evil!", whereas God is saying, "choose the good". If God is at the same time whispering to man's conscience to choose good while Satan is whispering, "choose evil", how is that God tempting man? If what I described is the case, God is actually fighting against Satan for the soul of man, the one who He created for the purpose to tempt, but it is not God doing the tempting. God is actually doing the opposite. He is encouraging righteousness while Satan encourages evil. Perhaps this was God's design.

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.

I agree. But if God created a tempter in order that He might see if one is trustworthy, and was exerting just as much (if not more) influence on the person's mind when they are presented with the choice to sin or not, as the devil was, then God would simply be giving the man two choices: "will you follow the tempter? or will you follow Me?" Once again, God created the tempter to tempt, but is not Himself doing the tempting because at the same time He is trying to influence the man to choose righteousness by personally influencing the man's thoughts or circumstances, thereby giving him a way of escape. Therefore, while Satan is doing his tempting, and God is doing His "anti-tempting" or "tempting toward righteousness"... God can thereby truly test the motives and actions because God gave ample strength in order to overcome the temptation that He himself ordained. It seems natural for me to understand that God is in control of the intensity of the temptation since it is said that you cannot be tempted beyond your ability. Therefore, God is in control of the temptation, and if He wanted to, it seems He could end the temptation altogether. After all, God could just silence the tempter if He wanted to, but He desires to use those temptations as a means of testing. Therefore, although God may be ordaining the devil to tempt, He is also fighting against the tempter's influence by giving man a clear way out, and all the necessary ability in order to overcome that temptation since He is in control of the circumstances of the temptation and will not allow the devil more ground than is necessary for a true test in which God is innocent of any accusation that He was the one tempting. I don't know if that makes sense, I may not be expressing my opinion very well. In conclusion: although God ordained the tempter to tempt, God still controls all circumstances of the temptation, gives ability to overcome the temptation, and influences the mind to resist the temptation. Therefore, God is not purposefully trying to draw someone into sin like our own lusts do, or even how the devil does. He is allowing the temptation for a purpose, but His true intention is that the temptation would be resisted. In the end, God is not tempting, but testing. This argument attempts to answer your main concern. I'd like to hear what you'd think of such a prospect.

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.

I agree with your initial assessment. When the idea of open theism comes in, I'm still not completely sure and I am undecided on this issue. I am open to it though. Perhaps I will post some questions I have about the open future on the correct thread.

[RICHinCHRIST]

benstenson,

One more thought:



Consider this verse one more time. If God can control the circumstances of one's temptation, how do we view God's allowance of it in the first place? In other words, if God is in control of allowing the devil to tempt to a certain intensity, but no further, is it not God who is sovereign in allowing temptation to come to man?

Is there really any difference if God created the devil the way he is in order to tempt, or if He simply allows the temptation to occur? Either way, God is in control of both scenarios, thereby making a way of escape in both scenarios. God's intention does not change in both scenarios. If God simply allows Satan to tempt (and didn't create him that way), God is sovereignly allowing the temptation to occur to a certain degree thereby confirming His desire that one be tempted. Whether God purposefully intended for it, or did not, is irrelevant. God is still in control and intends for man to be tempted. This does not mean, as you suggest, that God is responsible for trying to draw man into sin (even if it is His desire that temptation would occur), but rather that this is a means of testing where God gives enough freedom to man to resist what He Himself is allowing or ordaining.

We are all going to experience a certain level of temptation in our lifetime. This has either been ordained by God or it has been allowed by God. Either way, God is deciding how heavy the temptation will come to us, so He is in control of the temptation to begin with. Looking at it from this perspective, God is still not the one intending to draw man into sin (in either scenario), but rather that man would rule over it.

[benstenson]

Whether God purposefully intended for it, or did not, is irrelevant.
...
God is still in control and intends for man to be tempted.

This sounds like "whether or not it was intended it was intended"

But you brought up a point that I think is very important. I am still working through how to articulate it and I pulled an all-nighter at work so I'll probably need to follow up tomorrow with clearer thinking.

You said,

Is there really any difference if God created the devil the way he is in order to tempt, or if He simply allows the temptation to occur?

Not everything that God allows is His first choice of what would happen. Allowing something does not mean He intended for it to happen. Remember in the book of Job, God said to Satan "you incited me against him (Job)". That's why I pointed out the thing about whether something is intended above. There is a difference between allowing something bad to happen because it would be worse if you didn't let it happen, and "allowing" something bad to happen because it is necessary to your plan. I don't know how well I've explained this.

[RICHinCHRIST]

This sounds like "whether or not it was intended it was intended"

But you brought up a point that I think is very important. I am still working through how to articulate it and I pulled an all-nighter at work so I'll probably need to follow up tomorrow with clearer thinking.

I was very tired last night when I wrote my posts too, so my language is not always the best. My basic point was that if God predestined that satan would tempt or whether he knew satan would fall in advance but didn't want him to, or even if he just reacted to the fall of satan not knowing he would fall, in each scenario God still controls the current temptations of people. In each scenario temptation comes to the same extent that it will come in our lifetime. God is in complete control of the tempter's ability to tempt. Satan cannot tempt more than what God allows. Therefore, God's purpose in allowing the devil to tempt does not change in any of the scenarios. So, in essence, God is actually the one in control of the temptation. This doesn't mean that God tempts people, but that He intends for it to strengthen man to choose good rather than pull him into sin.

This is why James can say that we are to rejoice whenever we experience various temptations, because our faith is strengthened and our character is refined and our perseverance is exercised. God's purpose in temptation is different than satan's or even our own desires drawing us away. Like my initial point, if God created (or allowed) all these circumstances, and He is purposefully trying to teach and draw men to overcome temptation.. it cannot be said that He tempts people to sin even if He Himself ordained the tempter because He is fervently influencing people to resist the tempter.


Also...

I don't know how to interpret this verse other than that this is referring to the creation of Satan. If this is referring to all wicked people, then we must all become Calvinists. I could try to weasel my way through it as an Arminian, but it would be very difficult to interpret.

[benstenson]

Thanks for waiting for my reply.

My basic point was that if God predestined that satan would tempt or whether he knew satan would fall in advance but didn't want him to, or even if he just reacted to the fall of satan not knowing he would fall, in each scenario God still controls the current temptations of people. In each scenario temptation comes to the same extent that it will come in our lifetime. God is in complete control of the tempter's ability to tempt. Satan cannot tempt more than what God allows. Therefore, God's purpose in allowing the devil to tempt does not change in any of the scenarios. So, in essence, God is actually the one in control of the temptation. This doesn't mean that God tempts people, but that He intends for it to strengthen man to choose good rather than pull him into sin.

The fact that God has enough power to snuff out the whole universe does not mean that whatever He allows to happen is automatically His intention. There is a big difference between something being your original plan and something being what you allow in response to a crisis situation such as universal rebellion and imminent damnation of billions of souls.

God obviously could have destroyed Satan long ago, but remember the parable of the wheat and the tares, sometimes holding off on judgment is necessary for others to be saved. The bible says God is willing to make His wrath and power known, but He endures with much long-suffering those who have earned His judgment so that He can show mercy to whoever repents. The bible says God is angry with the wicked every day.

if God created (or allowed) all these circumstances, and He is purposefully trying to teach and draw men to overcome temptation.. it cannot be said that He tempts people to sin even if He Himself ordained the tempter because He is fervently influencing people to resist the tempter.

If God was encouraging us toward obedience while simultaneously sock-puppet tempting us with the devil, He would still be tempting us. The allowing it idea is a different idea than intending it to be so, a different matter altogether than it being his original plan. It is completely plausible that overcoming Satan with brute force, at this time, could have a negative effect on God's present influence in the world. At some point it will be the best course of action, but obviously it would have a negative effect at this time, otherwise God would destroy the devil immediately. This is completely different though from saying that it was all part of God's original plan from the beginning. If it was His original plan, then the devil would be a sock-puppet. It would not change the fact that the creator would be the actual tempter to say that he was also saying the opposite at the same time. If God created the devil to tempt us, God would be the tempter, not the created instrument which could only do what it was made to do. To say that God is also encouraging toward obedience while the sock-puppet tempter was tempting would not at all change the fact that it would be the one controlling the tempter who was the real tempter. If someone tempts and encourages simultaneously, they are still tempting. If I steal your hat and give you flowers, I still stole your hat.

Also...

I don't know how to interpret this verse other than that this is referring to the creation of Satan. If this is referring to all wicked people, then we must all become Calvinists. I could try to weasel my way through it as an Arminian, but it would be very difficult to interpret.

I see no reason to say it is only about the devil. I would hypothetically find it easier to read it in a calvinistic way than to say it was only about the devil. But it is not saying that God made the wicked wicked. To take it completely literally it would mean that God made the people who eventually became wicked, for the specific purpose of punishing them. But God regretted making man when He saw how wicked they became. Check out Gen 6, God actually says He was sorry about His own choice to create, not simply about the results. Paul also said if it was possible that he would wish he could go to hell instead of the unbelieving Jews. If Paul was a Godly man and full of the Holy Spirit, then how much more would God feel this way? I would not create someone if I knew in advance that they would have to suffer eternally. I think that is a reflection of how God feels. If I would be willing to go to hell rather than my loved ones have to go there, how much less would God create anyone, man or angel, for the purpose of punishing them? It is really a sick kind of idea you know?

The interpretation that makes the most sense to me is that it is just saying God is not mocked, whatever a man sows he will also reap. In other words, the joke is not on God if people are wicked and rebellious, it is on them. Punishment was not God's original plan, but through punishment God will make the most out of an evil and critical situation. I don't think God was ignorant of the possibility of disobedience when He created man. Therefore it is not like God has no plan to deal with the wicked. In this way you could look at it kind of like "corporate condemnation" the reverse of "corporate election". This is also in Jude 1:4, "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." and 1:14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these" and also those who were not in the book of life in revelation.

[benstenson]

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 devil does not remove free will. By blinding people to the truth the devil cuts them off from extra influence that they might consider and decide to repent in response to. It is a matter of influence, not a matter of 100% control. When I used to serve the devil I would still have moments of clarity where I recognized truths which I did not want to pay attention to. I was not 100% blind when I was an unbeliever. I was convicted by my conscience regarding different life choices. If I had not shunned the truth that I still had then I think God would have broke through the devils deception, which He did anyway eventually. My point is that the blindness was not 100%, I still had free will as an atheist.

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.

This is really a blasphemous idea that God wanted to make sure Eve would sin. God is the enemy of sin, not the one who makes sure it happens. God is angry at sin. If sin was God's plan then God would be angry at his own plan. There is more than one sense to the word natural. Sometimes natural means easier. But sometimes natural means what we are made to do. Sometimes sin is the easier choice, sometimes lying in bed all day could be the easier choice, but that does not mean it is what we are made to do. Lying in bed all day is not natural, though it might be easier sometimes. The fact that sin might be easier sometimes does not mean it is in accordance with our design, our nature.

We do have "volition" or the power of choice but our will is not "free" because it is not unencumbered or uninfluenced.

Influence does not contradict freedom. Free will does not mean being omnipotent either. It does mean being able to obey or refuse to obey our moral obligations.

We have a will that is inclined toward sin,

The will only inclines toward sin when a person chooses to sin. Having natural desires for pleasure does not mean the will itself is inclined. The will is neutral, under our control. The desires are what feel like inclinations sometimes. That is natural. It does not mean we were designed to obey those desires. We were designed to rule over them and fulfill them only in lawful ways.

our will is not free

Everyone knows that they are able to be loving or to be selfish. That is all that free will means. It doesn't mean being omnipotent and having zero temptations. It just means being able to be loving or selfish. If a person says they are not able to be loving then they are lying.

Sin does not require a free will, the bible never says that, that is an assumption.

Love is a state of the will. God's law is love. Sin is transgression of the law. Therefore sin is a wrong state of the will.

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.

God's law only requires what we are able to do. We only have to love God with all of our mind, not with more mind than we have. We only have to love God with all of our strength, not with more strength than we have. The wording of the law itself makes it plain as day that God requires exactly what we are able to do. Therefore it is impossible for sin to be inevitable. If it was inevitable then we would logically not be able to avoid it. The idea of sin being inevitable is refuted by the very wording of God's law. Also, if sin was unavoidable it would be unjust to punish it, but God will punish it.

[RICHinCHRIST]

The fact that God has enough power to snuff out the whole universe does not mean that whatever He allows to happen is automatically His intention. There is a big difference between something being your original plan and something being what you allow in response to a crisis situation such as universal rebellion and imminent damnation of billions of souls.

Once again, this whole issue comes down to one's view of foreknowledge. You, as an open theist, put heavy emphasis on God's "reaction" to evil that He didn't know would occur beforehand. However, for me, I tend to not put as much weight into that. I think that either God created the devil the way he is, or that God at least knew in advance that the devil would rebel against Him. If the latter is true, then surely He created Satan for the purpose of testing people since He knew that the devil would rebel. In this case, God would still foreknow what the devil would do thereby His very act of creating him would be so that He might bring about a greater purpose through the devil's temptations. With this view of foreknowledge, we must say that it was God's intention that the devil would tempt people. If I become an open theist someday, maybe I will see things the way you do.

To say that God is also encouraging toward obedience while the sock-puppet tempter was tempting would not at all change the fact that it would be the one controlling the tempter who was the real tempter. If someone tempts and encourages simultaneously, they are still tempting.

Perhaps. I think back to the garden of Eden. If God really wanted to give Adam and Eve the best possible circumstances in the garden, He would have never allowed the devil to come and tempt Eve in the first place. If God was concerned about them breaking His command, why would He allow the devil to come in there and mess everything up? Yes, Eve was deceived by the devil, and Adam willfully transgressed. But Adam would have never willfully transgressed (as far as we know) if the devil didn't first deceive Eve. It seems that the devil was the one who was most at fault here. It's hard for me to think that God would just passively allow this to happen unless He had actually purposed for the devil to test them.


I see what you're saying about Prov. 16:4, perhaps you're right.

[steve7150]

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.

This is really a blasphemous idea that God wanted to make sure Eve would sin. God is the enemy of sin, not the one who makes sure it happens. God is angry at sin. If sin was God's plan then God would be angry at his own plan. There is more than one sense to the word natural. Sometimes natural means easier. But sometimes natural means what we are made to do. Sometimes sin is the easier choice, sometimes lying in bed all day could be the easier choice, but that does not mean it is what we are made to do. Lying in bed all day is not natural, though it might be easier sometimes. The fact that sin might be easier sometimes does not mean it is in accordance with our design, our nature.




Benstenson,
I'll leave it to God to judge my so called blasphemous comments. As far as free will goes , if one is encumbered then by definition he is not free, so whether one is blinded by the devil or blinded by God as Jesus referenced for some people, there is no free will. Let's look at Adam & Eve's so called free will,
"And when the women saw that the tree was good for food" Gen 3.6 (lust of the flesh) 1 John 2.15
"and that it was pleasant to the eyes" Gen 3.6 (lust of the eyes) 1 John 2.15
"and a tree to be desired to make one wise" Gen 3.6 (the pride of life) 1 John 2.15

Eve committed every category of sin there is in the world before she ate the fruit. Her thoughts did'nt come from her "free will" but out of her heart. These desires were in her heart because God made her and Adam pre-programmed in this way. No different then any of us as we have always been "in Adam" (1 Cor 15.22). One of the laws of the universe which God made is the law of cause and effect. The effect was that Adam and Eve sinned but what was the cause?

God put the tree right in the middle of the garden.
God made the tree look desirable.
God put the knowledge of good and evil in the same tree.
God pre-programmed Eve and Adam with lustful desires.
God put Satan in the garden to beguile Eve.

Did Eve sin by her "free will"? Paul said Eve was "beguiled" (2 Cor 11.3)which is the cause of her sin, not her free will. Who sent the beguiler? God did.
Adam was given Eve by God and Eve was to be with him. "And the man said, the women whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree and i did eat" Gen 3.12 Adam wanted to remain with his wife because God gave Eve to be with him, that was the cause of his sin.

Paul says "For the creation was subjected to futility , not willingly but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from it's slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." Rom 8.20-21.