The Narrow Path Ministries

A caller the other day made a point that made me think...

"If Adam hadn't sinned, I would have."

Beyond the obvious, I believe some theologies can embrace this, while others could not. What do you think? Could Adam have not sinned? If he had not, then could I have? What difference does it make?

This does open the door to a lot of questions.

darinhouston wrote:Could Adam have not sinned?

It seems the straight forward answer would be "yes".

darinhouston wrote:If he had not, then could I have?

I think that it's obvious that we "could", seeing as how Adam did. Maybe the question "would I have sinned?" would be more difficult to answer. In that case, we don't really know what it would be like to be completely innocent and ,at the same time, free from the bondage of sin. Is it likely that, faced with the same circumstances, we would succeed where Adam failed? Interesting idea.

darinhouston wrote:What difference does it make?

That's the real question. This is where the different theological systems would seem to come into play. But obviously, we can only make any predictions based upon what did happen and how God has revealed Himself in light of that. If Adam hadn't sinned, would God have done things differently, based on his (Adam's) continued faithfulness? What about the law of God? Was eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the only way a person could fall into sin? I would think that there were actually other ways that Adam could have sinned. What would have happened if Adam and Eve had not sinned but their children did? Would God have simply destroyed them and let Adam and Eve fill the earth with additional offspring? What about God's plan to bring Christ into the world? Would He have planned that "from the foundation of the world" if Adam and Eve had never sinned?

These are not easy questions for me to get my head around. Looking forward to other responses.

Could Adam have not sinned? If he had not, then could I have? What difference does it make?






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

darinhouston wrote:Could Adam have not sinned?

Yes. Otherwise God's command would have been insincere. Though He knew disobedience was possible, God genuinely expected Adam to obey.

More importantly, sin that is truly unavoidable cannot be sin at all. God could not justly condemn someone for inability.

If he had not, then could I have?

Sin is avoidable by its very nature. If sin was unavoidable, it would only be a weakness, mistake, short-coming, disability, etc. We have free will like Adam has free will.

EDIT - I misunderstood this question - free will is the ability to sin as well as the ability to not sin. Someone with free will can do either.

What difference does it make?

It is just the way things are because we have free will. Nothing that is genuinely unavoidable can be justly condemned or punished. So it is really an extremely loose way to use the word 'sin' to describe something unavoidable - in my opinion, it is much less confusing to use the word mistake or short-coming in such cases.

I'm not so sure we have "free" will and i don't know where the bible clearly affirms this. Our wills are influenced by many things including the temptations of our flesh which even Eve had before the fall. Did Eve have a free will with no experience with evil tempted by her eyes, her flesh and her pride and on top of that tempted by Satan.
God expected her not to sin. Sorry i think not. It seems to me God uses sin as a learning tool for us to overcome it and to grow spiritually. If we never faced sin and overcome it we remain spiritual babes or maybe robots.

look2jesus wrote:Maybe the question "would I have sinned?" would be more difficult to answer.

I agree. I actually don't see any way to even get started trying to speculate about this because it seems totally imaginary.

Was eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the only way a person could fall into sin? I would think that there were actually other ways that Adam could have sinned.

It was not the only way. Cain sinned against no written or spoken law except the law of the mind or conscience. Paul said that all the people who sinned between Adam and Moses, before the law, were condemned even though they did not sin against the command that Adam was given

"until the law sin was in the world"

"death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression"

steve7150 wrote:I'm not so sure we have "free" will and i don't know where the bible clearly affirms this.

It is self-evident. It was a matter of natural revelation long before there were enough printed copies of the bible to go around. Everyone intuitively knows they are a moral agent. Every moral choice we make assumes our freedom. The belief in free will is a necessary assumption or intuition of a mind making a moral choice.

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

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

The bible affirms human freedom every time it talks about commandments, law, reward, love, righteousness, sin, punishment, guilt, forgiveness, atonement, justification, and so on.

Did Eve have a free will with no experience with evil tempted by her eyes, her flesh and her pride and on top of that tempted by Satan.

I don't know about Eve's transgression and accountability because the Bible says she was deceived but Adam was not.

God expected her not to sin. Sorry i think not.

Why not? The Bible says "love believes all things". God's commandment implies the expectation that they would obey.

It seems to me God uses sin as a learning tool for us to overcome it and to grow spiritually.

He works with us even though we have rebelled against Him. But it is not like it is better to do evil that good may come as some people actually teach. The path to holiness is not sin. The path to righteousness is not unrighteousness.

If we never faced sin and overcome it we remain spiritual babes or maybe robots.

Jesus said that He overcame. It is always better to overcome temptation than to rebel against God.

steve7150 wrote:Was'nt the slaying of the lamb determined before the foundation of the world

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

I tend to lean toward steve7150's comments. I think Adam and Eve were inevitably going to sin. It's interesting that we are not told in the Genesis account how much time elapsed from the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 to their subsequent fall in chapter 3. How long was it? One day? One hour? 10 years? 100 years? This factor would clearly give us some more insight. I speculate that it was not a long time before they sinned because Adam is not given a much longer life span than the rest in Genesis 5's genealogy. So, in essence, yes, it was possible for Adam to not sin, but I don't think God was expecting him to last very long.

Either way, God allowed Satan to tempt and test Eve. Before Satan tempted her, she seemed to be doing fine. She knew that she wasn't supposed to eat that fruit. God still allowed Satan to lure her and her husband into transgression, with some greater purpose in mind. I don't think James 1:13-14 can apply to Adam and Eve. There were no evil desires by which to draw them away into sin, but it was clearly the influence of Satan, and Adam's deliberate willful disobedience. I believe God intended to test them to the point of a crossroads, knowing that they would inevitably choose evil... perhaps not the first time Satan tempted them... but surely eventually it would occur. I tend to think it was the first time they were tempted, probably not long after they were created.

I also think of Peter's denial of the Lord three times. God used Peter's failure to humble him and teach him. If he hadn't failed, he might have preached at Pentecost with pride, and not with humility. The Lord meant it for good, and He knew it was a necessary step in the development of Peter's character. Our God is amazing! He is able to turn that which is meant for evil by Satan and turn it around for good. I think God knew it would happen this way in advance, and He is using the Fall to teach His people how to walk by faith and how to depend on Him. In light of eternity, this temporal existence on planet Earth will seem so irrelevant. I think it is a great lesson God is teaching us, and we will not forget it. I can only wonder what we will think of our lives on earth 100 billion years from now. I don't think we will ever forget the damaging effects of sin, and it will be a lesson we will one day be glad we learned.

benstenson wrote:

steve7150 wrote:Was'nt the slaying of the lamb determined before the foundation of the world

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

What's the difference? The word "from" in my lexicon seems to speak of origins.

ἀπό - apo - strongs G575
of origin
a) of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
b) of origin of a cause

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