# Natural Man before the Fall: Ability and Grace



## Saiph

Robin and Chris,
Then what does Paul mean when he says "natural man" ?


_Split from this thread on the Free Offer of the Gospel
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=14459

puritansailor 

[Edited on 1-24-2006 by puritansailor]_


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Robin and Chris,
> Then what does Paul mean when he says "natural man" ?



It's best to use Paul's term "sarks" or "flesh." To be in the "flesh" is to not be regenerate, first and foremost. Romans 6 refers to the only two types of people on earth: those "in Adam" or those "in Christ." To be "in the Spirit" is to be in Christ. Yes....even while the Christian struggles horribly (failing?) with habitual sin, Romans 8 describes that even then, we are IN Christ --- because the Gospel is outside of us. The Gospel depends on what Christ DID!

Now THAT is Good News! 

Robin

PS. Always keep the reading of Romans in sequential order (chpt 1 --- 16.) To interrupt the sequence is to thwart a beautiful and awesome _symphony_ of Truth, Paul is unfolding.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Saiph

Yes, but the natural man understandeth not the things of the Spirit.
I believe it does damage to total depravity to say human nature is good, and by definition should be in reference to Christ.

When any man does what is "natural", it is sin. In Christ we are a new creation. He was the second Adam. We are heirs of the first, until regeneration. I understand what Calvin was trying to say, but he should have used better terms. Natural does not mean unaltered, or pure, or upright in the biblical sense. It means correspondence with the ordinary course of nature. Nature is fallen. The secular naturalist would prefer the former definition.

Is death unnatural ?

Or 

Is the resurrection unnatural ?



[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Yes, but the natural man understandeth not the things of the Spirit.
> I believe it does damage to total depravity to say human nature is good, and by definition should be in reference to Christ.
> 
> When any man does what is "natural", it is sin. In Christ we are a new creation. He was the second Adam. We are heirs of the first, until regeneration. I understand what Calvin was trying to say, but he should have used better terms. Natural does not mean unaltered, or pure, or upright in the biblical sense. It means correspondence with the ordinary course of nature. Nature is fallen. The secular naturalist would prefer the former definition.
> 
> Is death unnatural ?
> 
> Or
> 
> Is the resurrection unnatural ?
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]



Maybe we should move the thread?

So much can be said, Mark. It sounds like we need to unpack what pre-Fall, post-Fall human nature is like.

Btw, death is NOT natural. (!)

(whistling....) O, Dr. Clark.....care to make a much more insightful response to Mark's points, than I ever could? 

Robin


----------



## Saiph

I would be willing to accept your view if you define "natural".
We could then reduce the argument to a matter of vantage point or perspective.

My definition is: that which follows the ordinary course of nature.

Hence:

Eph. 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were *by nature the children of wrath*, even as others. 

And by contrast:

II Pe 1:4 
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be *partakers of the divine nature*, having escaped *the corruption that is in the world through lust. *


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> .
> I believe it does damage to total depravity to say human nature is good, and by definition should be in reference to Christ.
> 
> ..... The secular naturalist would prefer the former definition.



Mark, obviously I agree with your important reminder that a clear reference to Christ (hypostatic union/Trinity) remains intact when discussing the condition and essense of humanity.

However, I'd beg to disagree....the secular naturalist prefers to justify, even validate his sin by claiming "it's only natural."



r.


----------



## Saiph

> However, I'd beg to disagree....the secular naturalist prefers to justify, even validate his sin by claiming "it's only natural."



That is exactly my point. Sin is natural. We are born hating God. (And to the naturalist, that means unaltered or pure, ie. my 1st definition.)

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## alwaysreforming

But there is a difference in what you're saying above, and the claim that human nature is inherently evil. We know that every human nature, apart from Christ, IS evil, but its not to say that human nature (per se) IS evil, because then to do so would say that Jesus Christ has a "sinful" human nature, since human nature is always evil.

I think its a valid distinction to not always lump "human nature" and "sin" together, and to call the distinction into view is a great way to bring up the subject of Christ's perfection and His work on our account, especially in this day and age where His LIFE is ignored as being meritorious, and only His DEATH is talked about.

Also, when we get to Heaven and are glorified, will we not have a human nature? And Adam was created with a human nature, and it wasn't an evil nature that was given to him.


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> But there is a difference in what you're saying above, and the claim that human nature is inherently evil. We know that every human nature, apart from Christ, IS evil, but its not to say that human nature (per se) IS evil, because then to do so would say that Jesus Christ has a "sinful" human nature, since human nature is always evil.



Hebrews 2:16
For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham. 



> I think its a valid distinction to not always lump "human nature" and "sin" together, and to call the distinction into view is a great way to bring up the subject of Christ's perfection and His work on our account, especially in this day and age where His LIFE is ignored as being meritorious, and only His DEATH is talked about.
> 
> Also, when we get to Heaven and are glorified, will we not have a human nature? And Adam was created with a human nature, and it wasn't an evil nature that was given to him.



I think this is why I asked Robin to define "Nature", and I qualified my statements with my definition.

Nature and natural are two different things


----------



## Saiph

That sagacious Dominican friar of the 13th century solves this for us:



> Man's nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its integrity, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above (Article [1]). But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue. But in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so that he is unable to fulfil it by his own natural powers. Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured.
> 
> 
> And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.
> 
> 
> Aquinas - _Summa Theologica_ (Treatise On Grace) Question 109 Article 2



[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> That sagacious Dominican friar of the 13th century solves this for us:
> 
> 
> 
> ......Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue.
> 
> ........
> 
> And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.
> 
> 
> Aquinas - _Summa Theologica_ (Treatise On Grace) Question 109 Article 2
Click to expand...


So is Aquinas saying that Adam before the Fall could not keep the law decree God made ("do not eat..") without God's help?

Just wondering, am I reading him right?

Robin


----------



## Saiph

Yes, Robin. But Adam could not breathe or think without God's help in that most generic sense as well. So it does not remove Adam's freedom.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Yes, Robin. But Adam could not breathe or think without God's help in that most generic sense as well. So it does not remove Adam's freedom.



Wow --- this is quite different than what the confessions state (3 F's.) I mean.....what's the deal if God creates Adam to NOT be able to obey the edict "do not eat"....? Where in Scripture does it teach God created Adam unable to obey Him (before the Fall?)

r.


----------



## Saiph

I did not say God created Adam with the inability of obedience. 

Adam was able to sin.
Since the fall we are not able, to not sin.
In Christ we are able to not sin.
In eternity we will not be able to sin.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I did not say God created Adam with the inability of obedience.
> 
> Adam was able to sin.
> Since the fall we are not able, to not sin.
> In Christ we are able to not sin.
> In eternity we will not be able to sin.



Most importantly, was Adam able to NOT sin (before the Fall?)

r.


----------



## alwaysreforming

I bet that's what he meant to type, Robin, and that it was a typo to omit the word "not" in that first line.

(Sorry to speak for ya, Mark!)


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I bet that's what he meant to type, Robin, and that it was a typo to omit the word "not" in that first line.
> 
> (Sorry to speak for ya, Mark!)



Yes.

Augustine:

Pre Fall Man: able to sin, able not to sin (_posse peccare, posse non peccare_);
Post Fall Man: not able not to sin (_non posse non peccare_); 
Regenerate Man: able not to sin (_posse non peccare_);
Glorified Man: unable to sin (_non posse peccare_).


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue.
> 
> ... And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good.... Aquinas - _Summa Theologica_ (Treatise On Grace) Question 109 Article 2



Robin has put her finger on a very important problem. Thomas' doctrine of the _donum super additum_ (super added grace), i.e., preserving grace before the fall was rooted in a non-Christian anthropology and a non-Christian ontology. 

The background to this move was Augustine's turn to neo-Platonism (Plotinus) as way of explaining evil as a matter of being (good) and non-being (evil). 

From my 2001 essay on Concupiscence in _Modern Reformation_:



> St. Augustine (354-430) expressed his mature views in the treatise, On Marriage and Concupiscence (419) written against the Pelagians. Under the influence of neo-Platonism Augustine interpreted Paul's teaching on the "Spirit" and "flesh" in terms of being rather than as ethical and eschatological categories. Though he denied any "carnal concupiscence" before the fall and he considered it the "law of sin" (Romans 7.23), he also associated it very closely with sexual desire. Baptism, "the laver of regeneration" (Titus 3.5), washes away original sin and the guilt of concupiscence, but in this fallen world, the act of concupiscence remains, even among the regenerate. The "evil of concupiscence" may be tamed for procreation, but even in marriage it brings shame when its passions run hot.
> 
> According to Thomas Aquinas (c.1224-1274) humans were created good, with all the virtues, but because we are creatures and material we necessarily have "lower powers" or "appetites." Even before the fall, these powers were only subject to the soul, even before the fall, only by a "super added gift" (_donum super additum_) of grace. He says, "even before sin " man "required grace to obtain eternal life"¦." From the beginning, before the fall, Adam had within his soul, certain lower powers, one of which (concupiscence) was "the craving for pleasurable good" and this desire itself arises from natural, lower appetites. Thomas reasoned this way because he presupposed a sort of continuum of being between God and man, with God having complete being and man have relatively less. In short, for Thomas, concupiscence is the result of being human and was the precondition for sin even before the fall.
> 
> The Reformation not only reformed the doctrine of justification, but also moral theology. Against the prevailing medieval and Roman view, the Protestants denied that we fell because we were human. Rather, as the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) taught in Q. 6, we were created "in righteousness and true holiness, that we might rightly know God our creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal blessedness." Thus the First Adam needed no grace before the fall. Grace is for sinners, not for the sinless. The Protestant theologians consistently defined concupiscence as a post-fall phenomenon. Among the children of the first Adam, concupiscence is both an actual sin and the pre-condition or proclivity to sin.
> 
> Unlike Aquinas, who restricted concupiscence to the "sensual appetite," Calvin argued that it affects the whole of fallen man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "¦that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence (Institutes 2.1.8).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking about the deadly mixture of God's Law and our sin, Calvin rejected any idea of sinless perfection in this life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "¦if we go back to the remotest period, we shall not find a single saint who, clothed with a mortal body, ever attained to such perfection as to love the Lord with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and strength; and, on the other hand, not one who has not felt the power of concupiscence (Institutes, 2.7.5).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike Augustine, Calvin did not necessarily associate concupiscence with sexual desire. For Calvin, concupiscence is nothing more than a comprehensive synonym for sin.
Click to expand...


With Scripture, the Reformed theologians said that we were created "good," "righteous" and "holy." Sin, they said, is "accidental" to our nature as created. There was a radical Lutheran who taught in the 16th c that sin is "essential" to our nature as created, but his view was rejected universally. We all agree that, post-fall, we are inherently, "naturally" and radically sinful. 

The Reformed expressed this affirmation of the goodness of Adam (before the fall) as created (contra Thomas and Augustine) by teaching the covenant of works in which Adam was said to have been, before the fall, able to keep the law and to earn (yes, I said "earn") a state of consummate blessedness. Now, that "earning" was within a covenant freely made by God by, as the WCF says, "voluntary condescension," so it was by God's "ordained power" rather than relative to God's "absolute power." 

This is the background for our view of Jesus' sinlessness (impeccability) and active obedience for us and imputed to us. Our standards and theologians all have it that Jesus "earned" or "obtained" our justification and eventual consummate blessedness.

As to the free offer, when we speak of a sincere offer we're speaking of the administration of the covenant of grace. God has willed that the covenant of grace should be administered through the "serious" and "indiscriminate" (the language of the Synod of Dort) offer of the gospel. It is more than a demand, as some would have us think. 

Again, this view relies on distinctions that some have either lost or forgotten, namely the distinction between God's knowledge (said to be "archetypal" i.e., original, absolute, omniscient, immense etc) and ours (said to be "ectypal," i.e., imperfect, derived etc). 

God, of course, has decreed from all eternity who will and will not come to faith. We, otoh, are ignorant of the details of this decree. We are shut up to the revealed will of God (which Luther called the theology of the cross). The revealed will of God, as the Reformed have mostly understood it, is that the gospel should be preached to sinners the way God has preached it to us, as it were, through the prophets: "Do I take pleasure in the death of the wicked says the Lord...?" "God is not willing that any should be perish..." 

What sort of "willing" does Scripture have in view in such places? Given the clear teaching of Scripture that there is a decree, then such willing must be on a different order. It was to account for that "revealed" willing that we formulated the doctrine of the free, well-meant, sincere, offer.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

RSC,

So you would say human nature is good ?

Very good reformed defense. 

Adam traded the daily meal with God in the garden for a meal that would seperate him from God. The fruit was the devil's sacrament. So why talk of human nature as good ? We are born guilty in Adam, until born again in Christ. 
If Limited Atonement is true, any offer to the reprobate is insincere. But, we offer it to all because we do not know who is reprobate.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> RSC,
> 
> So you would say human nature is good ?
> 
> Very good reformed defense.
> 
> Adam traded the daily meal with God in the garden for a meal that would seperate him from God. The fruit was the devil's sacrament. So why talk of human nature as good ? We are born guilty in Adam, until born again in Christ.
> If Limited Atonement is true, any offer to the reprobate is insincere. But, we offer it to all because we do not know who is reprobate.



Yes, I agree that Adam traded God's sacrament (see Witsius on the _ Economy of the Covenants_ vol 1) for the Devil's (Olevianus called Adam's rebellion a false covenant). 

The Reformed point has been that human nature is good _ per se_ i.e., as created. We were not created corrupt (Augustine and Thomas) or fallen. We didn't have moral greeblies running around within that required the quenching powers of prelapsarian grace.

After the fall, the good creation, namely human nature, was radically and profoundly corrupted. Grace, as we mostly use it, is reserved to describe God's favor toward _sinners_ not the sinless and not Adam _ante lapsum_.

It does not follow to say that because the atonement is personal or definite (using Roger Nicole's categories) that the WMO is insincere. The question of the WMO is not God decree but our stance. What attitude are we to adopt toward those who are obviously outside the Christ confessing covenant community? We are to take the stance that God has revealed himself as taking. 

Further, God can be said to love his good creation. He loves his creatures. Love is one of the communicable (by analogy not by participation) attributes. As a divine attribute it is essential to God's nature. It is who he is. Peter van Mastricht, for example, was very clear about God's love for all, even the reprobate. 

We cannot peer into the divine decree or into the eternal knowledge of God. We shouldn't try. Given that (Creator/creature) distinction, how should we speak to those outside the covenant community who may or may not be elect (or to those within, for that matter)?

"Come to me all who weary laden, and I will give you rest"

"For God so loved the world"

That's the gospel call.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

Thinking through the Aquinas proposition again, I suppose I was equating contingent with some type of moral corruption. Even in our glorified state we will be contingent though.


----------



## mybigGod

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> RSC,
> 
> So you would say human nature is good ?
> 
> Very good reformed defense.
> 
> Adam traded the daily meal with God in the garden for a meal that would seperate him from God. The fruit was the devil's sacrament. So why talk of human nature as good ? We are born guilty in Adam, until born again in Christ.
> If Limited Atonement is true, any offer to the reprobate is insincere. But, we offer it to all because we do not know who is reprobate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree that Adam traded God's sacrament (see Witsius on the _ Economy of the Covenants_ vol 1) for the Devil's (Olevianus called Adam's rebellion a false covenant).
> 
> The Reformed point has been that human nature is good _ per se_ i.e., as created. We were not created corrupt (Augustine and Thomas) or fallen. We didn't have moral greeblies running around within that required the quenching powers of prelapsarian grace.
> 
> After the fall, the good creation, namely human nature, was radically and profoundly corrupted. Grace, as we mostly use it, is reserved to describe God's favor toward _sinners_ not the sinless and not Adam _ante lapsum_.
> 
> It does not follow to say that because the atonement is personal or definite (using Roger Nicole's categories) that the WMO is insincere. The question of the WMO is not God decree but our stance. What attitude are we to adopt toward those who are obviously outside the Christ confessing covenant community? We are to take the stance that God has revealed himself as taking.
> 
> Further, God can be said to love his good creation. He loves his creatures. Love is one of the communicable (by analogy not by participation) attributes. As a divine attribute it is essential to God's nature. It is who he is. Peter van Mastricht, for example, was very clear about God's love for all, even the reprobate.
> 
> We cannot peer into the divine decree or into the eternal knowledge of God. We shouldn't try. Given that (Creator/creature) distinction, how should we speak to those outside the covenant community who may or may not be elect (or to those within, for that matter)?
> 
> "Come to me all who weary laden, and I will give you rest"
> 
> "For God so loved the world"
> 
> That's the gospel call.
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


But yet through the necessity of dependence on God rather than an independent work system wasnt there a revelation hid in God as well as the limits of the good material that made up man a cause to see grace necessary?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> But yet through the necessity of dependence on God rather than an independent work system wasnt there a revelation hid in God as well as the limits of the good material that made up man a cause to see grace necessary?



That is why the Westminster Confession 7:1 says:



> The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.



As has been noted, the Divines could have spoken of grace here, but did not. That such a diverse group of folk agreed to this language, omitting grace, says something.

They turned not to grace to explain God's free act in covenanting with Adam, instead they turned to the divine free will. Hence "voluntary condescension." All of God's revelation is a voluntary condescension, but they chose to highlight that fact in the making of the covenant of works. 

The Creator/creature relations are such that man did not have any claim on God without God having freely willed to enter into a legal relation.

That done, it was a legal, and not a gracious relation. Adam was to earn his entry into glory. The first Adam having failed to do, the Second Adam did exactly that. Praise God for the strict, meritorious, legal, obedience of the Second Adam in place of his people.

rsc


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Amen -


----------



## Saiph

Dr. Clark, you said:



> Robin has put her finger on a very important problem. Thomas' doctrine of the donum super additum (super added grace), i.e., preserving grace before the fall was rooted in a non-Christian anthropology and a non-Christian ontology.



Would you mind explaining this. I have been trying to figure out what you meant by going back and re-reading Thomas, and Augustine on "soul". 
Outline their non Chirstian anthropology and ontology for me.

Have you read Bahnsen's paper on substantive monism ? Seems to me that the classic hylomorphic view is not wrong after all. Surely you do not accept Descartes non-spacial susbtance idea ?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Dr. Clark, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin has put her finger on a very important problem. Thomas' doctrine of the donum super additum (super added grace), i.e., preserving grace before the fall was rooted in a non-Christian anthropology and a non-Christian ontology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind explaining this. I have been trying to figure out what you meant by going back and re-reading Thomas, and Augustine on "soul".
> Outline their non Chirstian anthropology and ontology for me.
> 
> Have you read Bahnsen's paper on substantive monism ? Seems to me that the classic hylomorphic view is not wrong after all. Surely you do not accept Descartes non-spacial susbtance idea ?
Click to expand...


No, I've not read Bahnsen on substantive monism. I have read Thomas and a fair bit of medieval theology. 

Did you look up the "_donum super additum_"?

The covenant of works is an alternative to the DSA. There is talk among some Protestants about prelapsarian grace (e.g., in Ursinus and in others) but it is not on the same order nor did it function the same way as the DSA. There is some language in the Belgic about Adam not understanding his prelapsarian state, but I don't think this is a DSA. 

One of the great differences between the medievals and Reformation theology was the rejection by the Reformation of a widely assumed Plotinian-Dionysian scale of being in favor of a Creator/creature distinction. 

No, I'm not advocating Aristotle's ontology or psychology. I am, however, influenced by Brian Davies' astute interpretation of Thomas which I is supported by Roman scholars of Thomas with whom I've talked.

The problem isn't exactly or only body/soul relations but Thomas' ontological assumptions which the Reformation rejected and that, given the rejection, fed or supported their view of the prelapsarian state. 

Augustine and Thomas' were influenced by Plato (or Plotinus) in their anthropology but particularly in their assumption about divine-human relations. The Reformation finally destroyed the continuum between God and Man. Evangelicals have spent most of the last two hundred years re-building that continuum in the form of a ladder (via mysticism) to the beatific vision. I understand, the theology of the cross is not for everyone, but neither is Christianity.

The Protestant view of concupiscence over against the medieval (and frequently patristic) is a good case. See my essay some time back in Mod. Ref. on this.

Cheers,

rsc


----------



## mybigGod

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> But yet through the necessity of dependence on God rather than an independent work system wasnt there a revelation hid in God as well as the limits of the good material that made up man a cause to see grace necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why the Westminster Confession 7:1 says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been noted, the Divines could have spoken of grace here, but did not. That such a diverse group of folk agreed to this language, omitting grace, says something.
> 
> They turned not to grace to explain God's free act in covenanting with Adam, instead they turned to the divine free will. Hence "voluntary condescension." All of God's revelation is a voluntary condescension, but they chose to highlight that fact in the making of the covenant of works.
> 
> The Creator/creature relations are such that man did not have any claim on God without God having freely willed to enter into a legal relation.
> 
> That done, it was a legal, and not a gracious relation. Adam was to earn his entry into glory. The first Adam having failed to do, the Second Adam did exactly that. Praise God for the strict, meritorious, legal, obedience of the Second Adam in place of his people.
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


I guess i am having a hard time with the word covenant being used in scripture in the sense it is used by most reformers in a works paridigm.
I also have questions about whether that focus of obedience -disobedience was the major test in that covenant. Obviously the struggle between good and evil existed before the fall in other persons. Its obvious that satan was allowed by God to tempt man. Now these angelic powers and Gods power exceded mans limits just as they do post fall. I would question whether man in himself had the power in himself to thwart satans tatics without God intervening in it in some way by grace or in not allowing that temptation to effect that fall unless God limited Satan in some way.


----------



## Saiph

What did Adam enjoy before the fall ? The idea that we cannot speak of grace where sin is absent does not seem biblical to me. Grace according to some in this thread seems to always be God's favor despite our sin.

I believe that is a new meaning for grace? Grace and favor are used interchangeably in the NT. The term "favor" does not change or modify your definition of "grace" in my opinion. The _donum super additum_ seems to come from Augustine. 

The crux of this argument is perhaps this: *If man cannot earn merit before God by his own natural ability, then this was just as true before the Fall as it is after it.*

In both cases, Man requires supernatural power to remain in fellowship with God. If you believe that Adam and Eve were in a righteous state and relationship before God without supernatural grace/favor before the Fall, then you are accepting a form of prelapsarian pelagianism. 

Dr. Clark, could you outline for me the Biblical mind-body connection, and the difference between our ontological reality and God's ?

Now before someone accuses me of doing away with the covenant of works (which incidentally, I accept in principle, but do not see explicitly outlined in scripture) let me outline Augustine's idea of ability again.


Augustine:

Pre Fall Man: able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare);

Post Fall Man: not able not to sin (non posse non peccare);

Regenerate Man: able not to sin (posse non peccare);

Glorified Man: unable to sin (non posse peccare).


In the pre-fall state, man's ability to keep the law of not eating the fruit was by supernatural grace. Just as it is in regenerate man. Adam, and Eve, were not walking with God when the serpent was giving his lecture. Why not ? Adam was silent during the whole ordeal. Why did he not protect Eve ?

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> I guess i am having a hard time with the word covenant being used in scripture in the sense it is used by most reformers in a works paridigm [sic].



The classical Reformed tradition didn't have this problem, but lots of folk have, including the Socinians, the Arminians, the Lutherans (although Luther taught a sort of covenant of works in his lectures on Genesis in the 1540's). Be careful about rejecting the covenant of works since you may find yourself in unhappy company. The answer, "but I'm just following the Bible" won't help since that is _exactly_ what the Socinians said as they rejected the deity of Christ, the Trinity, justification sola gratia etc.

Think of it this way, was Jesus in a covenant of works or not? Was Jesus born under *the law* or not? Of course the answer is yes.

If Jesus as the second Adam was in such a covenant/relation to divine justice, then there can be no theoretical objection to such a relation having existed before. 

The Reformed argued also from the language of Gen 2-3 (as I've done here before on other threads) and from the prima facie evidence of Hosea 6:7 and from the legal aspect of the Israelite national covenant. 

Have you read Witsius? Get the new Horton book on covenant theology from Baker -- I really ought to get a percentage for all the shilling I do for him!  



> I also have questions about whether that focus of obedience -disobedience was the major test in that covenant.



This objection is most puzzling. What is complicated about "the day you eat thereof you shall surely die"? Seems like a test of obedience to me and it has seemed so to catholic (including the Protestants) Christianity since the Fathers. The idea of the covenant of works is not a novelty. 

Listen, if grace swallows up everything, as pious as that sounds, grace comes to mean nothing as it does in Barth where the decree and grace obliviate law and reprobation. Then, however, Barth proceeds to re-arrange law and gospel (since it's all of grace) and voilÃ  we have moralism, i.e., justification by grace and cooperation with grace. Murray denied or weakened the covenant of works, with no intent to damage Reformed theology and within 25 years Norm Shepherd was adopting Pelagianizing views. I don't know of an instance in the history of Reformed theology where the covenant of works has been denied without unhappy consequences (e.g., Baxter).



> ....I would question whether man in himself had the power in himself to thwart satans [sic] tatics [sic] without God intervening in it in some way by grace or in not allowing that temptation to effect that fall unless God limited Satan in some way.



This is prejudicing the question, however. It isn't a matter of man's intrinsic powers _per se_. It is a matter of the nature of the covenant of works/nature/life.

Is God able to establish such a covenant? To say no is to invoke a series of theological problems. The focus should not be on what I think is hypothetically possible, however, but on what God actually did. The text does reveal a test - eat and die; don't eat and live. 

Where is grace in the narrative? God made Adam "good." There is no defect. This is why the Reformed confessions speak with one voice about Adam's prelapsarian state. HC 6



> ...God created man good and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness; that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him



Adam was in a probationary state. He was made to enter into a probationary state. 

Consider HC 9



> Does not God, then, do injustice to man by requiring of him in His law that which he cannot perform?
> 
> No, for God so made man that he could perform it; but man, through the instigation of the devil, by wilful disobedience deprived himself and all his descendants of this power.



How does the HC (and WCF 7) understand Adam's potential and ability prelapsarian state? Is Adam weakened in any way? No. Does Adam have concupiscence? No. Is Adam lacking anything to fulfill the demands of the law? No.

We have trouble imagining a purely righteous man because our imaginations are warped by sin. We make it normative and we read it back into the prelapsarian state, but Scripture doesn't have this problem. It doesn't read grace or favor back into the prelapsarian state because it understands and implies what the HC says.

The fault of sin is Adam's, not God's. Adam did not fall from grace. That is the ROMAN view not the Protestant view. Adam broke the law. This fact is the basis for John's definition of sin as "lawlessness" not "gracelessness." 

The notion that the fall was a fall from grace stems, as I've said before, from an unbiblical and pagan view of divine-human relations. We do not exist on one end of a continuum with God. We are and only shall be analogues to God. Full stop. 

To say that grace was necessary before the fall is to say that, in effect, divinity is a pre-requisite for obedience, that humanity as such is incapable of obedience. That scheme almost always (and certainly did in Thomas and certainly does in contemporary evangelicalism) lead to a doctrine of theosis -- divinization as salvation. See M. Karkainen's (Fuller Sem) new book where teaches this explicitly.

This, of course, destroys not only the Creator/creature relations by turning the creature into the Creator it also makes our problem ontological rather than moral. Scripture never does this. The Protestants didn't do this. Augustine and Thomas did. Augustine and Thomas were wrong! Luther, Calvin and our theologians and symbols were more biblical. 

This approach also destroys the incarnation. We have a God-Man Savior. His humanity is not deified and his deity is not confused with his humanity. We have a Savior with two distinct natures united in one person. 

Why did God the Son have to become, having willed to be our Mediator and representative, a true man? Why not just come without the incarnation? To fulfill the covenant of works broken by Adam. If the "fall" was a "fall from grace" then why all the fuss about the law? About Jesus "righteousness" and "obedience"? Why the brutal 40 day temptation in the wilderness? Why not just "poof" and make it all go away? Why sweat, as it were, great drops of blood? Why "learn obedience" by the things he suffered? Why die outside the camp? Why be circumcised for us on the cross? Because, he was the Second Adam? He had to go back into the garden and do battle with the evil one, as a true man, and he did that his whole life. That is why he said "It is finished!" 

None of that makes any sense on an alternate scheme. The truth is that western theology was schizoid for most of 1000 years and God bless that fat little Saxon monk for finalizing the divorce from Plotinus and Dionysius and the rest of the theologians of glory!

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> What did Adam enjoy before the fall ? The idea that we cannot speak of grace where sin is absent does not seem biblical to me.



He enjoyed *righteousness.* I think I addressed this in the reply made immediately above.



> Grace according to some in this thread seems to always be God's favor despite our sin.



Well, there is a considerable amount of biblical support for this definition! Where sin abounded, grace abounded more (Rom 5:20)

This is also the confessional definition of sin and grace.



> I believe that is a new meaning for grace? Grace and favor are used interchangeably in the NT. The term "favor" does not change or modify your definition of "grace" in my opinion.



I don't understand. Grace and favor are synonyms. They both properly denote demerited favor to sinners.

Can they be used in other ways? Perhaps, as in "common grace" but improper or broader usage does tend to create theological confusion.



> The _donum super additum_ seems to come from Augustine.



As a historian, that's interesting. As regards the theological truth of the prelapsarian state, I don't care. Augustine is a hero but he was wrong about many things, which fact he realized himself, since he wrote (quite wonderfully) a book chronicling his own errors. The Reformed have never regarded Augustine as an infallible oracle.



> The crux of this argument is perhaps this: *If man cannot earn merit before God by his own natural ability, then this was just as true before the Fall as it is after it.*



You're close to the nub of the issue, but your reasoning seems flawed. I think I detect a hidden premise in the implied syllogism.

It is Pelagian to equivocate about human nature. Humanity (as Augustine taught us and as Boston repeated) has existed in four states. The prelapsarian state and the post-lapsarian states are distinct. Hence Paul called the natural state _post lapsum_ "œdead." (Eph 2;1-4). Prior to the fall we were "œalive." Our abilities, then, suffered a mortal blow, literally, after the fall.

Thus whatever we cannot do (anything meritorious) after the fall is no indicator of human ability before the fall. The fundamental problem in the debate with the FV is their refusal to make this distinction. Failure to make this distinction what made Pelagius err. As I recall, Augustine had quite a bit to say to Pelagius about just that.



> In both cases, Man requires supernatural power to remain in fellowship with God. If you believe that Adam and Eve were in a righteous state and relationship before God without supernatural grace/favor before the Fall, then you are accepting a form of prelapsarian pelagianism.



In a word: nonsense. See above. Without equivocating re "œnature" we´re fine.



> Dr. Clark, could you outline for me the Biblical mind-body connection, and the difference between our ontological reality and God's ?



No. Read the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession etc. I don´t think it´s that complicated. We are body and soul. We´re complex entities. We´re creatures. We´re analogues. God is none of those. What else do you want me to say?



> In the pre-fall state, man's ability to keep the law of not eating the fruit was by supernatural grace.



Where is the biblical proof for this?

rsc


----------



## Saiph

Dr. Clark,

God created us, but He has no obligation to us because of that mere act creation.
Therefore, as contingent beings, even in a biological and natural sense, we depend on His common grace for every movement. I seriously do not see any contradiction with what Augustine taught and the Covenant of Works.

Why is it so heretical to say that Adam was able to obey God because of supernatural grace from God ?

There is no equivocation on human nature. God simply gave man over to disobedience at the fall. God ordained the fall of Satan and man because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

The problem is the fallacious logical order of infralapsarianism. supralapsarians have always understood the need for common grace.


----------



## Saiph

WHen I asked:



> Dr. Clark, could you outline for me the Biblical mind-body connection, and the difference between our ontological reality and God's ?




You replied:



> No. Read the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession etc. I don´t think it´s that complicated. We are body and soul. We´re complex entities. We´re creatures. We´re analogues. God is none of those. What else do you want me to say?



I have read those documents countless times. I am still wanting.

I have read Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Bahnsen, on this mind-body question and still am not satisfied.

I was hoping a doctor of philosophy like yourself could help me out.

My specific question would be is the mind/soul biological, some spiritual substance tethered to the biological, or some entity wholly other than the body but caged within ?

I am trying to understand problems like catatonic states, mental retardation, Alzheimers, comas, and demonic posession. Does lack of motor function effect the soul ? Do mentally retarded or autistic people feel like a soul trapped inside a body they cannot control ? Are they coherent and conscious within, looking out at a worl that does not understand them ? How does a demon possess a person ? Do they merely control their body, or can they somehow infiltrate some immaterial substance of the human soul ? Are they like a virus in the bloodstream to the soul ? Does Christianity even come close to having an answer for any of these questions ?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> God created us, but He has no obligation to us because of that mere act creation. Therefore, as contingent beings, even in a biological and natural sense, we depend on His common grace for every movement. I seriously do not see any contradiction with what Augustine taught and the Covenant of Works.



Aren't you satisifed with the language of the WCF and the HC that I have cited previously? What is there _exactly_ about the confessional language with which you disagree?

Why, when the WCF speaks of "voluntary condescension" do you insist on other language? 

What is the virtue (no pun intended) of injecting grace into the prelapsarian covenant? 



> Why is it so heretical to say that Adam was able to obey God because of supernatural grace from God ?



Mark, go back and re-read my earlier posts. I didn't say "heretical." I do think it's an error. You tell me why I think it's an error and we'll see if we're communicating. It isn't help for an endless cycle of demands for the same arguments.

It is possible that the traditional proofs don't satisfy you. I understand that. I don't agree, but I understand. It happens.



> There is no equivocation on human nature. God simply gave man over to disobedience at the fall. God ordained the fall of Satan and man because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.



You're not accounting for the radical difference in human nature post lapsum. 



> The problem is the fallacious logical order of infralapsarianism. supralapsarians have always understood the need for common grace.



Please give a concrete historical example where a confessional supralapsarian Reformed theologian before Herman Hoeksema or Gordon Clark argued for prelapsarian grace. Why exactly is this logically necessary? The debate between supralapsarians and infralapsarians wasn't about the historical fact of the fall or its effects. All the orthodox (of which tiny handful were actually supra) affirmed that in the fall our faculties were entirely corrupted. Before the fall we were uncorrupted and able to do what God commanded. What changed was not the law but our ability.

Mark, if I may say, it seems to me that your theology tends to rationalism. You might give the possibility some thought.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> I have read those documents countless times. I am still wanting.



Have you _understood_ the confessional doctrine? 

What is it exactly that leaves you wanting? You may be asking for things Reformed theology cannot and will not supply? I don't know.



> I was hoping a doctor of philosophy like yourself could help me out.



This isn't a philosophical question -- or at least that's not how I do theology -- and I'm most definitely not a philosopher. In my doctrine of God course I find it's the philosophical theologians who cause the most trouble (open theism, social Trinitarianism). 

Have you thought about seminary? I know a really good school! 

I teach historical theology. I know a lot more about what was than about what "is" according to the philosophers. I tend to sort of modified common sense epistemology and I'm Van Tillian in my apologetics, but that's about it.



> My specific question would be is the mind/soul biological, some spiritual substance tethered to the biological, or some entity wholly other than the body but caged within ?



I taught theological anthropology at Wheaton a couple of times, but I can´t reproduce the course here. It´s been a few years. In short, what I know about body/soul relations is what the Scriptures say as they've been interpreted by the Reformed confessions and theologians. 

To go much beyond that, for me, tends to rationalism.

I can't tell you in any great detail what the soul is; just that we are a soul and that we have one. We are capable of being separated from the soul and in that case we, according to Paul in 2 Cor, "naked." 

There is a body/soul dualism -- not all dualisms are Platonic -- but as I say, that's an unnatural state induced by the fall. 

The soul is a way of describing our faculties. I guess I'm old fashioned in that way. I still think we have a mind, a will, and affections. As I used to tell my children, "the soul is who we are without our bodies." 

It isn't some gassy bubble that escapes at death to be absorbed into the ether or into the deity. It isn't the sole residence for the image, but it is a residence for or closely connected to the image. 

We shouldn't shy away from the traditional Protestant language emphasizing the soul´s relation to the image, but we should also understand that the body is part of the image. I think this is the implication of Gen 9. We are body and soul. To inflict damage on the body is to inflict damage on the image. 

We should also be very suspicious of some Doyeweerdian attempts to deny the existence of the soul per se by identifying it wholly with the body. 



> I am trying to understand problems like catatonic states, mental retardation, Alzheimers, comas, and demonic posession [sic]. Does lack of motor function effect the soul ? Do mentally retarded or autistic people feel like a soul trapped inside a body they cannot control ? Are they coherent and conscious within, looking out at a worl that does not understand them ? How does a demon possess a person ? Do they merely control their body, or can they somehow infiltrate some immaterial substance of the human soul ? Are they like a virus in the bloodstream to the soul ? Does Christianity even come close to having an answer for any of these questions ?



These are all difficult cases of different kinds. Difficult cases make for bad theology. 

There may not be entirely satisfactory answers (depending upon what counts for proof). 

My answer, For what it's worth, is that these are all humans made in God's image. The image does not reside in any one faculty or ability so that to lose one faculty does not disqualify one as an image bearer. These are humans and as such they are and have souls. The existence of the soul is not contingent upon ability or rationality, even though we have historically described humans as "rational souls." 

I have no biblical or extra-biblical evidence to suggest, e.g., that the retarded are anything other than humans with diminished mental and physical abilities. They often have enormous emotional capacity however. There are few humans willing to love and be loved like the retarded.

To be diminished in mental or physical ability does not impair the soul fundamentally. If the older faculty psychology is correct, that "œsoul" describes cognition, affection, volition etc, then to the degree one´s cognition is affected, one could say that the soul is to the same degree affected. I wouldn´t press this. The soul was certainly affected by the fall, and these would be extreme examples of the result of the fall.

The soul is not, however, a thing. It isn't material. Your questions seem to presuppose or imply that it is material. We've never described the soul as you suggest. We usually take soul and spirit as synonyms hence the doctrine of the immateriality of the soul. 

rsc


----------



## Saiph

> Mark, if I may say, it seems to me that your theology tends to rationalism. You might give the possibility some thought.



I take that as a compliment. I would hate to have an irrational theology.

And I am not saying the soul is material, I am asking if it is substantial in a non-empyrical (epiphenomenal?) sense, like the angels are supposed to be. Are angels made of matter ?

The resurrected Christ said he was not a ghost, but the substance of His body was certainly not like ours. And I am not even sure we can relate the material of our souls with His resurrected body.

You are correct in saying I do not find the reformed confessions satisfying. They leave far too many questions unanswered that the medieval scholars at least thought about and proposed ideas for, even if they are wrong. (Like God's sustaining grace before the fall) How can a contingent being ever do what God commands without God's help ? ? The WCF idea that adam could obey in some strength of his own is beyond my comprehension. (I believe perfect and personal obedience is the exact phrase)

Could you explain the danger of rationalism ? Because at the end of the day all I have is my mind. My emotions, thoughts, memories, ideas, and dreams. I can never turn it off. I was reading in Locke about what the objects of the mind are when they are not unconscious. That didn't make sense to me. I have never been unconscious. Even in sleep I dream and my mind is still set on something.

The soul is used as the whole man in scripture, but it is also spoken of apart from the body. I am trying to understand the coinherence of the two. Some of your responses have helped. It seems like Christians of all people, should know more about the mind than anyone else. Our Lord went aroung casting out demons, and the apostles followed that miraculous work. Today we see many afflictions of mind and soul but seem to not offer anything but "read your bible and pray" remedies. (Not to downplay those things, but I feel helpless when faced with people like this)

I have never considered seminary, because, as you can see, I would probably be wasting the teacher's time all day with what they deem to be inane questions like these. I also do not hear some inner voice calling me to be an elder or pastor either.

Your idea of the imago dei not residing in one faculty is interesting. So our body as well as our soul bears the image ? When we say God is spirit that accounts for our soul I guess because He breathed into us some ontological essence and we became life giving spirits. (traducianism ?) But does God have a form ? Since our bodies are matter and form.




[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Have you thought about seminary? I know a really good school!



Mmmmmm....RTS Jackson....


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> Why is it so heretical to say that Adam was able to obey God because of supernatural grace from God ?
> 
> There is no equivocation on human nature. God simply gave man over to disobedience at the fall. God ordained the fall of Satan and man because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.


Mark, did God create Adam good? If so, then he was intrinsically equiped to do good. It was not a withdrawal of grace but Adam's free choice which caused his fall. To say that Adam fell because of a withdrawal of grace, implies, to me at least, that man was created sinful and only God's gracious hand restrained him from falling. 

I think you would also find it interesting that Augustine agreed with Pelagius that Adam, before the Fall, had the ability to obey God "naturally." Their differences arose on the effects of the Fall. Pelagius felt man retained his ability to do good. Augustine argued that as a judgment upon man, all his faculties became intrinsically corrupt. Unfortunately, I can't provide you the exact reference for this because I turned the book back into the library and it has been a couple months since I read it, but I believe it was in Augustine's book _ On Nature and Grace. _ You may want to browse through it again.

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Saiph

Patrick, God's grace and adam's freedom are not incompatible. Adam fell by his own free choice. And Adam obeyed up until the point of lapse by his moral upright ability and the efficacious power of God's grace. 

Ecc 7:29 See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. 

So ALL reformed christians believe in prelapsarian pelagianism ? ?

Obviously, if Adam's good nature was enough to sustain him, he would not have fallen.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> I take that as a compliment. I would hate to have an irrational theology.



Mark,

There's a distinction between "rationalism" and "rationality." We must use our rational faculty. Rationalism, however, is another thing. It refers either to the identity of the human intellect with the divine (this was Thomas' problem and that of G. Clark) or it can describe the attempt to use a single (perhaps collective) universal principle by which all other things are explained or levered, e.g., Modernist autonomous rationality. "If I can't understand x comprehensively, I can't accept it."



> And I am not saying the soul is material, I am asking if it is substantial in a non-empyrical[sic] (epiphenomenal?) sense, like the angels are supposed to be. Are angels made of matter ?



To be best of my knowledge the soul is not empirically verifiable. It is not quantifiable, but it is.



> The resurrected Christ said he was not a ghost, but the substance of His body was certainly not like ours. And I am not even sure we can relate the material of our souls with His resurrected body.



Perhaps you have Lutheran tendencies here. We´ve always said that Christ´s humanity is consubstantial with ours. There are differences since his humanity is glorified and ours is not, but it is still local, physical, true humanity. 



> You are correct in saying I do not find the reformed confessions satisfying. They leave far too many questions unanswered that the medieval scholars at least thought about and proposed ideas for, even if they are wrong.



The Reformed symbols weren´t a dialogue with medieval theology! They did consider and reject some medieval ideas. The symbols serve as a starting point in Reformed theology. They aren´t comprehensive and it´s not to say that we can´t discuss things outside them, but on fundamental issues such as you´re raising, they contain our basic convictions. 

Before you reject them, you should spend some time reading classic Reformed theology, such as Wollebius (it´s in English) in the Beardslee vol. You need to read Turretin and Owen and the other fellows available. Have you read Richard Muller´s work or the Trueman/Clark vol on Protestant Scholasticism.



> (Like God's sustaining grace before the fall) How can a contingent being ever do what God commands without God's help ? ? The WCF idea that adam could obey in some strength of his own is beyond my comprehension. (I believe perfect and personal obedience is the exact phrase)



The Reformed orthodox did comment on these questions. Could it be that you just don´t accept the assumptions on which the Reformed operate? 



> Could you explain the danger of rationalism ? Because at the end of the day all I have is my mind. My emotions, thoughts, memories, ideas, and dreams. I can never turn it off.



The problem is the "˜ism. The human intellect is necessarily finite, fallible, and dependent upon divine revelation for knowledge of God and for salvation. This is a catholic affirmation. I think we may be talking past one another here.



> The soul is used as the whole man in scripture, but it is also spoken of apart from the body. I am trying to understand the coinherence of the two.



Yes, it's true (as I think I've said) that both things are said. We agree here. As to explaining the coinherence of them in detail, well, there are mysteries in the faith! 



> Some of your responses have helped. It seems like Christians of all people, should know more about the mind than anyone else. Our Lord went aroung [sic] casting out demons, and the apostles followed that miraculous work. Today we see many afflictions of mind and soul but seem to not offer anything but "read your bible and pray" remedies. (Not to downplay those things, but I feel helpless when faced with people like this)



I quite agree that Pietism is no answer to serious problems! You need to read some orthodox Reformed theology. Don´t convict RO for sins it hasn´t committed! 

I rememnber J. Laidlaw, _The Biblical doctrine of man _ being useful. You might also see A. Hoekema, _Created in God's Image _(Grand Rapids, 1986). He had some training in psychology and tried to address some of the questions you're raising. See also Sherlock, Charles. _The Doctrine of Humanity_. Edited by Gerald Bray. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996. See also: Cooper, John W. _Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting_. 2nd ed. Vancouver, BC: Regent College, 1995. Reprint, 1996. I found C. Plantinga's _Not the Way It's Supposed to Be..._ stimulating also.



> I have never considered seminary, because, as you can see, I would probably be wasting the teacher's time all day with what they deem to be inane questions like these.



These aren´t inane but perhaps beyond the ability of an internet discussion board. I´ll tell you when the questions get inane. 



> I also do not hear some inner voice calling me to be an elder or pastor either.



Well, we have students on campus who are not headed for pastoral ministry. One intends to go into medicine. Another intends to go into law. Another wants to be a teacher. Another wants to get a PhD. To be sure, these account for about 30% of our students. Most of our students are MDiv and headed for pastoral ministry, but sorting out vocation is long and difficult business. No one should imagine that it is automatic or magical or easy.



> "¦ So our body as well as our soul bears the image?



Yes, that´s my reading of Gen 9:1-6.



> When we say God is spirit that accounts for our soul I guess because He breathed into us some ontological essence and we became life giving spirits. (traducianism ?)



Not quite! We are analogues! You need to give this notion serious consideration. Try M. Horton´s _ Covenant and Eschatology"¦_. An analogue/analog is something that is _like_ things but _isn´t_ those things. 

We have no divine essence or substance in us. God is said to have breathed life into us, but he didn't deify us. Because of God's gift of life, we are said to have become a living being, but that principle, the soul, isn´t a divine spark or principle. Divinization (in creation, redemption or glorification) is not in the biblical scheme of divine-human relations



> But does God have a form ? Since our bodies are matter and form.



We´re not Mormons. We´re Christians. 

Reformed Christianity has not typically accepted the form matter dualism. Plato does not help us here. The soul is not the "œform." 

The body/soul dualism is not Platonic dualism. The human problem (once again) is *not* ontological. We do not lack being. We are not broken because we are finite or creatures. We are broken because we are sinful, because we broke the law in Adam and that sin was imputed to all and we all experience its effects. The matter is legal, not ontic.

To posit a body of God is to reverse the relations between original and analogy. We are analogues of God, he is not an analog of us. There are always disanalogies between the original and the analogue and all the more when the original is God and the analog is a creature. 

As to the transmission of the soul, I understand traducianism, but I tend to creationism with Thomas and most of the Reformed. It´s not a matter of orthodoxy, however.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

Dr. Clark, I will consider your book list. I will have to see if I can get them through the Prospector library system here.



> The body/soul dualism is not Platonic dualism. The human problem (once again) is not ontological. We do not lack being. We are not broken because we are finite or creatures. We are broken because we are sinful, because we broke the law in Adam and that sin was imputed to all and we all experience its effects. The matter is legal, not ontic.



That was a very useful statement that helped me understand where you are coming from. I tend to view every aspect of anthropology from the ontological perspective, and maybe I shouldn't. You are correct in saying that contingency does not necesitate corruption I suppose. I have read Owen, Calvin, Hoeksema, Berkhof, and A.A. Hodge. I do not remember them getting to this level of understanding when writing about anthropology. 

Christ dwelling "in" us is what then if not ontological ? I know when Jesus said we will be one as He and the father are one it cannot be ontological but covenantal, but what about the indwelling of the Spirit. How does that work ?

And how is it different from the influence of the Spirit in the O.T. ?

The answer to that might also answer my demon posession question.

P.S. I appreciate your patience with me here. I have been reading J.S. Romanides, Aquinas, and Augustine trying to figure this all out. And by God having a form I was not trying to be mormon. It is one of those paradoxes like the limitations of omnipotence. God shaped the world out of the formless and void because He is not tohu or bohu Himself, the created three dimensional world has symmetry and beauty. God must have some type of eternal order, logic, and symmetry that is not bounded by time or space. Maybe that sounds eastern, but all creation shows His glory, but no one seems to talk about how, and in what way ? He does reveal Himself as Trinity, and that three is a finite number of distinct persons, but also unified in one being. (I hope to afford Lethams book soon)


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Patrick, God's grace and adam's freedom are not incompatible. Adam fell by his own free choice. And Adam obeyed up until the point of lapse by his moral upright ability and the efficacious power of God's grace.
> 
> Ecc 7:29 See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.
> 
> So ALL reformed christians believe in prelapsarian pelagianism ? ?
> 
> Obviously, if Adam's good nature was enough to sustain him, he would not have fallen.



Pelagianism is imputing (no pun intended) to Adam _AFTER_ the fall abilities he had only *before* the fall.

The _mystery_ of the fall is that, despite the fact that Adam was righteous and holy he fell anyway. 

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> I tend to view every aspect of anthropology from the ontological perspective, and maybe I shouldn't.



Now we're making progress. Salvation is not a change in ontological status. It is justification, a legal declaration, sanctification, a gracious process, and glorification, the consummation. At no time do the saved ever become anything other than the saved.



> I do not remember them getting to this level of understanding when writing about anthropology.



Well, I learned my theology from them so...



> Christ dwelling "in" us is what then if not ontological ?



Our union with Christ is both legal and vital, but never ontic. We are "in Christ" by virtue of God's decree. For infralapsarians, we were elected "in Christ," from eternity. 

As a consequence of the decree, as a consequence of the covenant of redemption, as a consequence of God's efficacious call and sovereign regeneration wrought through the Word by the Spirit, we are, by faith, "in Christ." 

Legally this union means we are justified before God on the basis of Christ's obedience. This union works life in those who are united, sola gratia, sola fide, but this union doesn't deify (contra the Finnish School and lots of other folks, incl. Andreas Osiander!)



> I know when Jesus said we will be one as He and the father are one it cannot be ontological but covenantal...



Exactly!



> but what about the indwelling of the Spirit. How does that work ?



The Spirit (not baptism!) is the agent of our union with Christ. The Spirit operates through the Word to bring to effect the union that God decreed. 



> And how is it different from the influence of the Spirit in the O.T. ?



I may not understand the question, but as I understand Abraham, he was united to Christ sola gratia, sola fide. He looked foward to the incarnation and we look back. 

We should distinguish soteric work from common operations of the Spirit, including those peculiar to the typological, temporary, national covenant with Israel and the theocracy thereof.



> The answer to that might also answer my demon posession question.



I doubt that one can be possessed by a demon and united to Christ. In the Gospels, they seem to be mutually exclusive. I'm not sure if this is what you mean, however.



> I have been reading J.S. Romanides, Aquinas, and Augustine trying to figure this all out.



Try some Witsius, Olevianus (Firm Foundation is really a wonderful work), Calvin and the lot. 



> ...God shaped the world out of the formless and void because He is not tohu or bohu Himself, the created three dimensional world has symmetry and beauty. God must have some type of eternal order, logic, and symmetry that is not bounded by time or space.



Don't go there. 1. Non sequitur. 2. Analogy is not continuity. Don't reason back from us to God. Whatever order, and it surely exists, there is in God far transcends our categories. 

See the recent thread on divine accommodation.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

> The mystery of the fall is that, despite the fact that Adam was righteous and holy he fell anyway.



What you call mystery, I call God's ordained will carried out through Adam.



> Now we're making progress. Salvation is not a change in ontological status. It is justification, a legal declaration, sanctification, a gracious process, and glorification, the consummation. At no time do the saved ever become anything other than the saved.



Ok, then what is "eternal life", is it not a better "reality", and a sort of apotheosis ? (though not ultimate) I assumed it was life restored to something better than Adam had. And what is a level higher than walking with God ?




> I may not understand the question, but as I understand Abraham, he was united to Christ sola gratia, sola fide. He looked foward to the incarnation and we look back.



What does David mean here:

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. 

Since he was an author of part of the Old Testament, a literal and typological king, and according to some (not me) one of the only authorized hymnwriters for all ages. Is he hinting at some fall from grace ? Or was the work of the Spirit different under the old covenant ?



> Whatever order, and it surely exists, there is in God far transcends our categories.



 interesting point, but how does any human reason other than subjectively from himself outward ? (not advocating solipsism, but even if I read the bible, I have to use reason to understand it, the Spirit gives enlightenment but how I do not know, and it still does not happen outside my mind)


I will look for that other thread.



[Edited on 12-24-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> What you call mystery, I call God's ordained will carried out through Adam.



That God sovereignly ordained the fall does not remove but rather heightens the mystery. 

Mystery cannot be avoided in the faith. I was just reading Thomas Boston (Fourfold State) on this very thing. He says the whole faith (on union with Christ) is shot full of mystery. One God, three persons; 1 person in the incarnation but two natures; divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

To eliminate mystery from Christianity is to eliminate Christianity.



> Ok, then what is "eternal life", is it not a better "reality", and a sort of apotheosis ? (though not ultimate) I assumed it was life restored to something better than Adam had. And what is a level higher than walking with God ?



We don't confess apotheosis. We're categorically opposed to it. We don't have to be divinized to be glorified. Consummation does not mean overcoming our humanity. In Pauline terms, in 1 Cor 15, it is conformity to the will and presence of the Holy Spirit (See G. Vos, Pauline Eschatology).




> Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.



I understand him to be speaking as a typological messianic character. That is, he was speaking out of his office not from or about his person per se. Saul had "lost" the Spirit. David feared, perhaps, the same thing. There are other, perhaps better, ways of reading this text, but they don't fundamentally change the unity in the ordo salutis under Moses and under Christ.



> how does any human reason other than subjectively from himself outward ? (not advocating solipsism, but even if I read the bible, I have to use reason to understand it, the Spirit gives enlightenment but how I do not know, and it still does not happen outside my mind)



By beginning with divinely authorized analogies in Scripture. Yes, our senses must perceive revelation, but they do this because God is and has first revealed himself to us. Revelation works, our senses work because God is and has willed things to function as they do.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

> To eliminate mystery from Christianity is to eliminate Christianity.



I agree. But for me, there seems to be no mystery in the fall. God had it all planned out because the crucifixion is the crux (no pun intended) of creation.

There is plenty of mystery everywhere else though.




> By beginning with divinely authorized analogies in Scripture. Yes, our senses must perceive revelation, but they do this because God is and has first revealed himself to us. Revelation works, our senses work because God is and has willed things to function as they do.



Now you are sounding like Aquinas. Which I better understand.
What you are calling analogies are what I mean by forms, I think.



> But life is not
> seen with the corporeal eye, as a thing in itself visible, but as the indirect object of the sense; which
> indeed is not known by sense, but at once, together with sense, by some other cognitive power. But
> that the divine presence is known by the intellect immediately on the sight of, and through, corporeal
> things, happens from two causes---viz. from the perspicuity of the intellect, and from the refulgence
> of the divine glory infused into the body after its renovation.
> 
> *Reply to Objection 3:* The essence of God is not seen in a vision of the imagination; but the
> imagination receives some form representing God according to some mode of similitude; as in the
> divine Scripture divine things are metaphorically described by means of sensible things.
> 
> 
> Summa I.12.3



Do you think this fits with your accommodation idea ?

Have you read "God And Other Minds" by Alvin Plantinga ? ? Is it helpful regarding these ideas ?


----------



## mybigGod

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> I guess i am having a hard time with the word covenant being used in scripture in the sense it is used by most reformers in a works paridigm [sic].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The classical Reformed tradition didn't have this problem, but lots of folk have, including the Socinians, the Arminians, the Lutherans (although Luther taught a sort of covenant of works in his lectures on Genesis in the 1540's). Be careful about rejecting the covenant of works since you may find yourself in unhappy company. The answer, "but I'm just following the Bible" won't help since that is _exactly_ what the Socinians said as they rejected the deity of Christ, the Trinity, justification sola gratia etc.
> 
> Think of it this way, was Jesus in a covenant of works or not? Was Jesus born under *the law* or not? Of course the answer is yes.
> 
> If Jesus as the second Adam was in such a covenant/relation to divine justice, then there can be no theoretical objection to such a relation having existed before.
> 
> The Reformed argued also from the language of Gen 2-3 (as I've done here before on other threads) and from the prima facie evidence of Hosea 6:7 and from the legal aspect of the Israelite national covenant.
> 
> Have you read Witsius? Get the new Horton book on covenant theology from Baker -- I really ought to get a percentage for all the shilling I do for him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also have questions about whether that focus of obedience -disobedience was the major test in that covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This objection is most puzzling. What is complicated about "the day you eat thereof you shall surely die"? Seems like a test of obedience to me and it has seemed so to catholic (including the Protestants) Christianity since the Fathers. The idea of the covenant of works is not a novelty.
> 
> Listen, if grace swallows up everything, as pious as that sounds, grace comes to mean nothing as it does in Barth where the decree and grace obliviate law and reprobation. Then, however, Barth proceeds to re-arrange law and gospel (since it's all of grace) and voilÃ  we have moralism, i.e., justification by grace and cooperation with grace. Murray denied or weakened the covenant of works, with no intent to damage Reformed theology and within 25 years Norm Shepherd was adopting Pelagianizing views. I don't know of an instance in the history of Reformed theology where the covenant of works has been denied without unhappy consequences (e.g., Baxter).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....I would question whether man in himself had the power in himself to thwart satans [sic] tatics [sic] without God intervening in it in some way by grace or in not allowing that temptation to effect that fall unless God limited Satan in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is prejudicing the question, however. It isn't a matter of man's intrinsic powers _per se_. It is a matter of the nature of the covenant of works/nature/life.
> 
> Is God able to establish such a covenant? To say no is to invoke a series of theological problems. The focus should not be on what I think is hypothetically possible, however, but on what God actually did. The text does reveal a test - eat and die; don't eat and live.
> 
> Where is grace in the narrative? God made Adam "good." There is no defect. This is why the Reformed confessions speak with one voice about Adam's prelapsarian state. HC 6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...God created man good and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness; that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam was in a probationary state. He was made to enter into a probationary state.
> 
> Consider HC 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not God, then, do injustice to man by requiring of him in His law that which he cannot perform?
> 
> No, for God so made man that he could perform it; but man, through the instigation of the devil, by wilful disobedience deprived himself and all his descendants of this power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does the HC (and WCF 7) understand Adam's potential and ability prelapsarian state? Is Adam weakened in any way? No. Does Adam have concupiscence? No. Is Adam lacking anything to fulfill the demands of the law? No.
> 
> We have trouble imagining a purely righteous man because our imaginations are warped by sin. We make it normative and we read it back into the prelapsarian state, but Scripture doesn't have this problem. It doesn't read grace or favor back into the prelapsarian state because it understands and implies what the HC says.
> 
> The fault of sin is Adam's, not God's. Adam did not fall from grace. That is the ROMAN view not the Protestant view. Adam broke the law. This fact is the basis for John's definition of sin as "lawlessness" not "gracelessness."
> 
> The notion that the fall was a fall from grace stems, as I've said before, from an unbiblical and pagan view of divine-human relations. We do not exist on one end of a continuum with God. We are and only shall be analogues to God. Full stop.
> 
> To say that grace was necessary before the fall is to say that, in effect, divinity is a pre-requisite for obedience, that humanity as such is incapable of obedience. That scheme almost always (and certainly did in Thomas and certainly does in contemporary evangelicalism) lead to a doctrine of theosis -- divinization as salvation. See M. Karkainen's (Fuller Sem) new book where teaches this explicitly.
> 
> This, of course, destroys not only the Creator/creature relations by turning the creature into the Creator it also makes our problem ontological rather than moral. Scripture never does this. The Protestants didn't do this. Augustine and Thomas did. Augustine and Thomas were wrong! Luther, Calvin and our theologians and symbols were more biblical.
> 
> This approach also destroys the incarnation. We have a God-Man Savior. His humanity is not deified and his deity is not confused with his humanity. We have a Savior with two distinct natures united in one person.
> 
> Why did God the Son have to become, having willed to be our Mediator and representative, a true man? Why not just come without the incarnation? To fulfill the covenant of works broken by Adam. If the "fall" was a "fall from grace" then why all the fuss about the law? About Jesus "righteousness" and "obedience"? Why the brutal 40 day temptation in the wilderness? Why not just "poof" and make it all go away? Why sweat, as it were, great drops of blood? Why "learn obedience" by the things he suffered? Why die outside the camp? Why be circumcised for us on the cross? Because, he was the Second Adam? He had to go back into the garden and do battle with the evil one, as a true man, and he did that his whole life. That is why he said "It is finished!"
> 
> None of that makes any sense on an alternate scheme. The truth is that western theology was schizoid for most of 1000 years and God bless that fat little Saxon monk for finalizing the divorce from Plotinus and Dionysius and the rest of the theologians of glory!
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


Thank you for your time!
It seems to me we are making man absolutely responsible before the fall as an argument for the doctrine of total depravity after the fall. We are also saying that man is absolutely responsible after the fall. We are saying that God is absolutely soveriegn after the fall in relationship but He is not in relationship to man before the fall (in the absolute post fall sense). We are using the word "covenant" like a door to barr any one from entering and prying into the nature of that relationship in the garden. What is wrong with saying that God is absolutely soveriengn before the fall and preserving the relationship in a supernaturalistic way in that mystery between Gods soveriegnty and mans responsibility instead of hiding it behind the unbiblical usage of the word covenant? I think Murray would go only as far as using the concept of a "Test" to define the garden experience. Isnt this the defintion of a passive decree? And in a sense isnt all sin a passive decree?


----------



## mybigGod

> _Originally posted by mybigGod_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> I guess i am having a hard time with the word covenant being used in scripture in the sense it is used by most reformers in a works paridigm [sic].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The classical Reformed tradition didn't have this problem, but lots of folk have, including the Socinians, the Arminians, the Lutherans (although Luther taught a sort of covenant of works in his lectures on Genesis in the 1540's). Be careful about rejecting the covenant of works since you may find yourself in unhappy company. The answer, "but I'm just following the Bible" won't help since that is _exactly_ what the Socinians said as they rejected the deity of Christ, the Trinity, justification sola gratia etc.
> 
> Think of it this way, was Jesus in a covenant of works or not? Was Jesus born under *the law* or not? Of course the answer is yes.
> 
> If Jesus as the second Adam was in such a covenant/relation to divine justice, then there can be no theoretical objection to such a relation having existed before.
> 
> The Reformed argued also from the language of Gen 2-3 (as I've done here before on other threads) and from the prima facie evidence of Hosea 6:7 and from the legal aspect of the Israelite national covenant.
> 
> Have you read Witsius? Get the new Horton book on covenant theology from Baker -- I really ought to get a percentage for all the shilling I do for him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also have questions about whether that focus of obedience -disobedience was the major test in that covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This objection is most puzzling. What is complicated about "the day you eat thereof you shall surely die"? Seems like a test of obedience to me and it has seemed so to catholic (including the Protestants) Christianity since the Fathers. The idea of the covenant of works is not a novelty.
> 
> Listen, if grace swallows up everything, as pious as that sounds, grace comes to mean nothing as it does in Barth where the decree and grace obliviate law and reprobation. Then, however, Barth proceeds to re-arrange law and gospel (since it's all of grace) and voilÃ  we have moralism, i.e., justification by grace and cooperation with grace. Murray denied or weakened the covenant of works, with no intent to damage Reformed theology and within 25 years Norm Shepherd was adopting Pelagianizing views. I don't know of an instance in the history of Reformed theology where the covenant of works has been denied without unhappy consequences (e.g., Baxter).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....I would question whether man in himself had the power in himself to thwart satans [sic] tatics [sic] without God intervening in it in some way by grace or in not allowing that temptation to effect that fall unless God limited Satan in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is prejudicing the question, however. It isn't a matter of man's intrinsic powers _per se_. It is a matter of the nature of the covenant of works/nature/life.
> 
> Is God able to establish such a covenant? To say no is to invoke a series of theological problems. The focus should not be on what I think is hypothetically possible, however, but on what God actually did. The text does reveal a test - eat and die; don't eat and live.
> 
> Where is grace in the narrative? God made Adam "good." There is no defect. This is why the Reformed confessions speak with one voice about Adam's prelapsarian state. HC 6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...God created man good and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness; that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam was in a probationary state. He was made to enter into a probationary state.
> 
> Consider HC 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not God, then, do injustice to man by requiring of him in His law that which he cannot perform?
> 
> No, for God so made man that he could perform it; but man, through the instigation of the devil, by wilful disobedience deprived himself and all his descendants of this power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does the HC (and WCF 7) understand Adam's potential and ability prelapsarian state? Is Adam weakened in any way? No. Does Adam have concupiscence? No. Is Adam lacking anything to fulfill the demands of the law? No.
> 
> We have trouble imagining a purely righteous man because our imaginations are warped by sin. We make it normative and we read it back into the prelapsarian state, but Scripture doesn't have this problem. It doesn't read grace or favor back into the prelapsarian state because it understands and implies what the HC says.
> 
> The fault of sin is Adam's, not God's. Adam did not fall from grace. That is the ROMAN view not the Protestant view. Adam broke the law. This fact is the basis for John's definition of sin as "lawlessness" not "gracelessness."
> 
> The notion that the fall was a fall from grace stems, as I've said before, from an unbiblical and pagan view of divine-human relations. We do not exist on one end of a continuum with God. We are and only shall be analogues to God. Full stop.
> 
> To say that grace was necessary before the fall is to say that, in effect, divinity is a pre-requisite for obedience, that humanity as such is incapable of obedience. That scheme almost always (and certainly did in Thomas and certainly does in contemporary evangelicalism) lead to a doctrine of theosis -- divinization as salvation. See M. Karkainen's (Fuller Sem) new book where teaches this explicitly.
> 
> This, of course, destroys not only the Creator/creature relations by turning the creature into the Creator it also makes our problem ontological rather than moral. Scripture never does this. The Protestants didn't do this. Augustine and Thomas did. Augustine and Thomas were wrong! Luther, Calvin and our theologians and symbols were more biblical.
> 
> This approach also destroys the incarnation. We have a God-Man Savior. His humanity is not deified and his deity is not confused with his humanity. We have a Savior with two distinct natures united in one person.
> 
> Why did God the Son have to become, having willed to be our Mediator and representative, a true man? Why not just come without the incarnation? To fulfill the covenant of works broken by Adam. If the "fall" was a "fall from grace" then why all the fuss about the law? About Jesus "righteousness" and "obedience"? Why the brutal 40 day temptation in the wilderness? Why not just "poof" and make it all go away? Why sweat, as it were, great drops of blood? Why "learn obedience" by the things he suffered? Why die outside the camp? Why be circumcised for us on the cross? Because, he was the Second Adam? He had to go back into the garden and do battle with the evil one, as a true man, and he did that his whole life. That is why he said "It is finished!"
> 
> None of that makes any sense on an alternate scheme. The truth is that western theology was schizoid for most of 1000 years and God bless that fat little Saxon monk for finalizing the divorce from Plotinus and Dionysius and the rest of the theologians of glory!
> 
> rsc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your time!
> It seems to me we are making man absolutely responsible before the fall as an argument for the doctrine of total depravity after the fall. We are also saying that man is absolutely responsible after the fall. We are saying that God is absolutely soveriegn after the fall in relationship but He is not in relationship to man before the fall (in the absolute post fall sense). We are using the word "covenant" like a door to barr any one from entering and prying into the nature of that relationship in the garden. What is wrong with saying that God is absolutely soveriengn before the fall and preserving the relationship in a supernaturalistic way in that mystery between Gods soveriegnty and mans responsibility instead of hiding it behind the unbiblical usage of the word covenant? I think Murray would go only as far as using the concept of a "Test" to define the garden experience. Isnt this the defintion of a passive decree? And in a sense isnt all sin a passive decree?
Click to expand...


God can withhold the power of temptation now yet we are fully responsible.


----------



## mybigGod

> _Originally posted by mybigGod_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> I guess i am having a hard time with the word covenant being used in scripture in the sense it is used by most reformers in a works paridigm [sic].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The classical Reformed tradition didn't have this problem, but lots of folk have, including the Socinians, the Arminians, the Lutherans (although Luther taught a sort of covenant of works in his lectures on Genesis in the 1540's). Be careful about rejecting the covenant of works since you may find yourself in unhappy company. The answer, "but I'm just following the Bible" won't help since that is _exactly_ what the Socinians said as they rejected the deity of Christ, the Trinity, justification sola gratia etc.
> 
> Think of it this way, was Jesus in a covenant of works or not? Was Jesus born under *the law* or not? Of course the answer is yes.
> 
> If Jesus as the second Adam was in such a covenant/relation to divine justice, then there can be no theoretical objection to such a relation having existed before.
> 
> The Reformed argued also from the language of Gen 2-3 (as I've done here before on other threads) and from the prima facie evidence of Hosea 6:7 and from the legal aspect of the Israelite national covenant.
> 
> Have you read Witsius? Get the new Horton book on covenant theology from Baker -- I really ought to get a percentage for all the shilling I do for him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also have questions about whether that focus of obedience -disobedience was the major test in that covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This objection is most puzzling. What is complicated about "the day you eat thereof you shall surely die"? Seems like a test of obedience to me and it has seemed so to catholic (including the Protestants) Christianity since the Fathers. The idea of the covenant of works is not a novelty.
> 
> Listen, if grace swallows up everything, as pious as that sounds, grace comes to mean nothing as it does in Barth where the decree and grace obliviate law and reprobation. Then, however, Barth proceeds to re-arrange law and gospel (since it's all of grace) and voilÃ  we have moralism, i.e., justification by grace and cooperation with grace. Murray denied or weakened the covenant of works, with no intent to damage Reformed theology and within 25 years Norm Shepherd was adopting Pelagianizing views. I don't know of an instance in the history of Reformed theology where the covenant of works has been denied without unhappy consequences (e.g., Baxter).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....I would question whether man in himself had the power in himself to thwart satans [sic] tatics [sic] without God intervening in it in some way by grace or in not allowing that temptation to effect that fall unless God limited Satan in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is prejudicing the question, however. It isn't a matter of man's intrinsic powers _per se_. It is a matter of the nature of the covenant of works/nature/life.
> 
> Is God able to establish such a covenant? To say no is to invoke a series of theological problems. The focus should not be on what I think is hypothetically possible, however, but on what God actually did. The text does reveal a test - eat and die; don't eat and live.
> 
> Where is grace in the narrative? God made Adam "good." There is no defect. This is why the Reformed confessions speak with one voice about Adam's prelapsarian state. HC 6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...God created man good and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness; that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam was in a probationary state. He was made to enter into a probationary state.
> 
> Consider HC 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not God, then, do injustice to man by requiring of him in His law that which he cannot perform?
> 
> No, for God so made man that he could perform it; but man, through the instigation of the devil, by wilful disobedience deprived himself and all his descendants of this power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does the HC (and WCF 7) understand Adam's potential and ability prelapsarian state? Is Adam weakened in any way? No. Does Adam have concupiscence? No. Is Adam lacking anything to fulfill the demands of the law? No.
> 
> We have trouble imagining a purely righteous man because our imaginations are warped by sin. We make it normative and we read it back into the prelapsarian state, but Scripture doesn't have this problem. It doesn't read grace or favor back into the prelapsarian state because it understands and implies what the HC says.
> 
> The fault of sin is Adam's, not God's. Adam did not fall from grace. That is the ROMAN view not the Protestant view. Adam broke the law. This fact is the basis for John's definition of sin as "lawlessness" not "gracelessness."
> 
> The notion that the fall was a fall from grace stems, as I've said before, from an unbiblical and pagan view of divine-human relations. We do not exist on one end of a continuum with God. We are and only shall be analogues to God. Full stop.
> 
> To say that grace was necessary before the fall is to say that, in effect, divinity is a pre-requisite for obedience, that humanity as such is incapable of obedience. That scheme almost always (and certainly did in Thomas and certainly does in contemporary evangelicalism) lead to a doctrine of theosis -- divinization as salvation. See M. Karkainen's (Fuller Sem) new book where teaches this explicitly.
> 
> This, of course, destroys not only the Creator/creature relations by turning the creature into the Creator it also makes our problem ontological rather than moral. Scripture never does this. The Protestants didn't do this. Augustine and Thomas did. Augustine and Thomas were wrong! Luther, Calvin and our theologians and symbols were more biblical.
> 
> This approach also destroys the incarnation. We have a God-Man Savior. His humanity is not deified and his deity is not confused with his humanity. We have a Savior with two distinct natures united in one person.
> 
> Why did God the Son have to become, having willed to be our Mediator and representative, a true man? Why not just come without the incarnation? To fulfill the covenant of works broken by Adam. If the "fall" was a "fall from grace" then why all the fuss about the law? About Jesus "righteousness" and "obedience"? Why the brutal 40 day temptation in the wilderness? Why not just "poof" and make it all go away? Why sweat, as it were, great drops of blood? Why "learn obedience" by the things he suffered? Why die outside the camp? Why be circumcised for us on the cross? Because, he was the Second Adam? He had to go back into the garden and do battle with the evil one, as a true man, and he did that his whole life. That is why he said "It is finished!"
> 
> None of that makes any sense on an alternate scheme. The truth is that western theology was schizoid for most of 1000 years and God bless that fat little Saxon monk for finalizing the divorce from Plotinus and Dionysius and the rest of the theologians of glory!
> 
> rsc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your time!
> It seems to me we are making man absolutely responsible before the fall as an argument for the doctrine of total depravity after the fall. We are also saying that man is absolutely responsible after the fall. We are saying that God is absolutely soveriegn after the fall in relationship but He is not in relationship to man before the fall (in the absolute post fall sense). We are using the word "covenant" like a door to barr any one from entering and prying into the nature of that relationship in the garden. What is wrong with saying that God is absolutely soveriengn before the fall and preserving the relationship in a supernaturalistic way in that mystery between Gods soveriegnty and mans responsibility instead of hiding it behind the unbiblical usage of the word covenant? I think Murray would go only as far as using the concept of a "Test" to define the garden experience. Isnt
> this the defintion of a passive decree? And in a sense isnt all sin a passive decree?
Click to expand...


[448] Gen. i. 2. "œAnd the earth was without form and void." Tohu, Bohu, which last are words signifying vanity and emptiness. Thus God was pleased in the first state of the creation to show what the creature is in itself; that in itself it is wholly empty and vain, that its fulness or goodness is not in itself, but in him, and in the communications of his Spirit, animating, quickening, adorning, replenishing, and blessing all things. The emptiness and vanity here spoken of, is set in opposition to that goodness spoken of afterwards. Through the incubation of the Spirit of God, (as the word translated moved, signifies,) the Spirit of God is here represented as giving form, and life, and perfection to this empty, void, and unformed mass, as a dove that sits infuses life, and brings to form and perfection the unformed mass of the egg. Thus the fulness of the creature is from God´s Spirit. If God withdraws from the creature, it immediately becomes empty and void of all good. The creature as it is in itself is a vessel, and has a capacity, but is empty; but that which fills that emptiness is the Spirit of God.

As the Spirit of God here is represented as hovering or brooding as a dove, so it is probable, when the Spirit of God appeared in a bodily shape, descending on Christ like a dove, it was with a hovering motion on his head, signifying the manner in which not only he personally was filled with the fulness of God, but also every individual member of his mystical body. So that this that we have an account of is one instance wherein the old creation was typical of the new. (See note on Eph. iii. 19.)J Edwards

Here is the other question i have. What exactly is the work of the Spirit in the goodness of man? Here is His renewing work over creation at the very outset of scripture. If His renewing work was exibited in creating all things isnt it more evident in the creation of man? How can man do good unless it was a spiritual good, that is infused with all the holy desires that the Holy Spirit renews in man. Here you have the work of the Spirit in the growth of the fruit of the two trees and that whole process of renewing the fruit to its adult hood. And yet man only had a moral goodness in his being? Yes i agree there is a concern with the problem with the arminist and socians etc. but what of the problem with those who hold to deism.

MAN was created in the image of God, a self-conscious, free, responsible, religious agent. Such identity implies an inherent, native, inalienable obligation to love and serve God with all the heart, soul, strength, and mind. This God could not but demand and man could not but owe. No created rational being can ever be relieved of this obligation. All that man is and does has reference to the will of God.

But man was also created good, good in respect of that which he specifically is. He was made upright and holy and therefore constituted for the demand, endowed with the character enabling him to fulfil all the demands devolving upon him by reason of God´s propriety in him and sovereignty over him. J. Murray

He was made upright and holy and therefore constituted for the demand. 
Was this a work of the Spirit in man?
No created rational being can ever be relieved of this obligation.
Could Adam rationally come to obedience in every action apart from an action in him from the Spirit?



[Edited on 12-26-2005 by mybigGod]


----------



## Saiph

> How can man do good unless it was a spiritual good, that is infused with all the holy desires that the Holy Spirit renews in man. Here you have the work of the Spirit in the growth of the fruit of the two trees and that whole process of renewing the fruit to its adult hood. And yet man only had a moral goodness in his being?



That is what has been troubling me since I understood and embraced reformed theology.

From everything I have read, it is God working in and through us,somehow that is never fully explained, but not us on or own. It is a mystery. But I really would like to know more about the mystery of sanctification. Every writing out there just merely touches on the liminal meridians of spiritual psychology.

I want something deeper. I know we do not need to understand the mind in order to use it, but I think there is much more that we can comprehend about it, and I am looking for Christian authors that have come to a better understanding of the soul, while still remaining theologically orthodox.


----------



## mybigGod

I wonder too. There is an awareness of our inward parts that can only be increased by being able to peer into them by work of the Spirit through the word. But a psychological peering is not a personal peering thats why its effects are only felt on a surface level. For example we know that the Holy Spirit indwells us by that being taught us as a universal indwelling of all believers. Yet what the effects in that indwelling are dependent apoun how personal we understand in that relationship to Him in the faculties of our soul and that ordered process that effect our disposition.So the peering into ourselves has a pondering renewal effect that increases our awareness of our corruption in that ordered process.This is the begining of understanding with spiritual awareness of the state of our souls in a dispositional way. 

Sorry if it is confusing but i am trying to describe to you what happens to me in meditation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by mybigGod_
> Thank you for your time!
> It seems to me we are making man absolutely responsible before the fall as an argument for the doctrine of total depravity after the fall. We are also saying that man is absolutely responsible after the fall.


Yes.



> We are saying that God is absolutely soveriegn after the fall in relationship but He is not in relationship to man before the fall (in the absolute post fall sense).


Incorrect. We believe God is absolutely sovereign the whole time. God was absolutely sovereign even when Adam was free and able to choose good and evil before the Fall. 



> We are using the word "covenant" like a door to barr any one from entering and prying into the nature of that relationship in the garden. What is wrong with saying that God is absolutely soveriengn before the fall and preserving the relationship in a supernaturalistic way in that mystery between Gods soveriegnty and mans responsibility instead of hiding it behind the unbiblical usage of the word covenant? I think Murray would go only as far as using the concept of a "Test" to define the garden experience. Isnt this the defintion of a passive decree? And in a sense isnt all sin a passive decree?



The question really is, did God create Adam good? What does that mean? The traditional Reformed answer to the question (WCF 9) is that God made Adam good, upright, and righteous. He intrinsically desired to do good. He was holy. Only such a creature can dwell with God (Ps. 15). 

To argue that Adam was created defective, that he would simply wander into sin without a restraining hand means that God did not create him holy and Adam didn't really fall. He simply acted naturally when God abandon him, and the loss of communion and favor with God did not result from Adam's sin, but from God's own withdrawal of favor from his righteous servant before he even sinned. Is this where you really wish to go? God blesses obedience, and loves righteousness. He does not withdraw his favor until sin stains the creature.


----------



## Saiph

So, 



> The question really is, did God create Adam good? What does that mean? The traditional Reformed answer to the question (WCF 9) is that God made Adam good, upright, and righteous. He intrinsically desired to do good. He was holy. Only such a creature can dwell with God (Ps. 15).



Adam was created with infused righteousness ? But now, after the fall, our righteousness must be imputed ?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> So,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question really is, did God create Adam good? What does that mean? The traditional Reformed answer to the question (WCF 9) is that God made Adam good, upright, and righteous. He intrinsically desired to do good. He was holy. Only such a creature can dwell with God (Ps. 15).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created with infused righteousness ? But now, after the fall, our righteousness must be imputed ?
Click to expand...


He was created with "original" righteousness. Sinners need sanctification (I think this is what you mean by "infused") after imputation to counteract the pollution of our nature and make us practically righteous. Adam had no such pollution. He was without sin. He was created good and upright and already practically righteous. He related to God as a righteous and holy man, without a Mediator, before his rebellion. He enjoyed the blessing of God until he sinned, in which communion was lost and wrath merited.


----------



## canuk

I am trying to find the verses that tell us that Adam was righteous and holy.

I see the verse that he was created good. He was created peccable, he was not perfect.

I see that Adam was a human and with a human nature whether fallen or in the garden would do what a human naure would do outside of God's grace. The act of God covering Adam and Eve with animal skins was gracious, they were to surely die for disobedience, but mercy and grace were given. 

Thomas Watson makes this statement in his work The Body of Divinity:

Adam´s Sin 
Q-15: WHAT WAS THE SIN WHEREBY OUR FIRST PARENTS FELL FROM THE ESTATE WHEREIN THEY WERE CREATED?

A: That sin was eating the forbidden fruit.

'She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband.´ Gen 3: 6.

Here is implied, 1. That our first parents fell from their estate of innocence. 2. The sin by which they fell, was eating the forbidden fruit.

I. Our first parents fell from their glorious state of innocence. 'God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.´ Eccl 7: 29. Adam was perfectly holy, he had rectitude of mind, and liberty of will to good; but his head ached till he had invented his own and our death; he sought out many inventions. 1. His fall was voluntary. He had a posse non peccare, a power not to fall. Free-will was a sufficient shield to repel temptation. The devil could not have forced him unless he had given his consent. Satan was only a suitor to woo, not a king to compel; but Adam gave away his own power, and suffered himself to be decoyed into sin; like a young gallant, who at one throw loses a fair lordship. Adam had a fair lordship, he was lord of the world. 'Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth.´ Gen 1: 28. But he lost all at one throw. Soon as he sinned, he forfeited paradise. 2. Adam´s fall was sudden; he did not long continue in his royal majesty.

How long did Adam continue in paradise before he fell?

Tostatus says, he fell the next day. Pererius says, he fell the eighth day after his creation. The most probable and received opinion is, that he fell the very same day in which he was created. So Irenaeus, Cyril, Epiphanius, and many others. The reasons which incline me to believe so are,

(1.) It is said, Satan was a murderer, 'from the beginning.´ John 8: 44. Now, whom did he murder? Not the blessed angels, he could not reach them; nor the cursed angels, for they had before destroyed themselves. How then was Satan a murderer from the beginning? As soon as Satan fell, he began to tempt mankind to sin; this was a murdering temptation. By which it appears Adam did not stay long in Paradise; soon after his creation the devil set upon him, and murdered him by his temptation.

(2.) Adam had not yet eaten of the tree of life. 'And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat; the Lord sent him forth of the garden.' Gen 3: 22, 23. This tree of life, being one of the choicest fruits in the garden, and being placed in the midst of Paradise, it is very likely Adam would have eaten of this tree of life one of the first, had not the serpent beguiled him with the tree of knowledge. So that I conclude, Adam fell the very day of his creation, because he had not tasted the tree of life, that tree that was most in his eye, and had such delicious fruit growing upon it.

(3.) 'Man being in honour, abideth not.' Psalm 49: I2. The Rabbis read it thus, 'Adam being in honour, lodged not one night.´ The Hebrew word for abide, signifies, 'To stay or lodge all night.' Adam then, it seems, did not take up one night´s lodging in Paradise.

Use one: From Adam´s sudden fall learn the weakness of human nature. Adam, in a state of integrity, quickly made a defection from God, he soon lost the robe of innocence and the glory of Paradise. If our nature was thus weak when it was at the best, what is it now when it is at the worst? If Adam did not stand when he was perfectly righteous, how unable are we to stand when sin has cut the lock of our original righteousness! If purified nature did not stand, how shall corrupt nature? If Adam, in a few hours, sinned himself out of Paradise, how quickly would we sin ourselves into hell, if we were not kept by a greater power than our own! But God puts underneath his everlasting arms. Deut 33: 27.

He uses the word holy which I don't see in scriptures, but the use of innocence and in the state of integrity are words that aren't found in the bible neither.

I find it interesting concerning the time frame of the fall of lucifer and the fall of Adam. Adam did not spent that much time in the garden. He was just freshly created. God knew that man in his human nature would not be able to obey God. That is why we needed a redeemer and His grace.

Now I am far from being a student of the word, I am only member of a church and do not attend a seminary so my theological muscles are slim!


----------



## Ron

> In the pre-fall state, man's ability to keep the law of not eating the fruit was by supernatural grace. Just as it is in regenerate man. Adam, and Eve, were not walking with God when the serpent was giving his lecture. Why not ?



Saiph,

You are correct. To choose is to act according to one´s intention or strongest inclination at the moment of choice. All choices, being rational, are intended; but intentions are not chosen. If intentions were chosen then each choice of an intention would require a more primitive intention that would also need to be chosen _ad infinitum_. Consequently, Adam´s action to choose contrary to God´s law was preceded by a sinful intention to act that was not chosen. Adam did not choose this (sinful) intention to act contrary to God´s law; for if he had, then that supposed choice of the _first_ sinful intention would have required an even more primitive sinful intention, which as you see would lead us down the path of an infinite regress. 

This matter is somewhat involved but it is not conceptually difficult. It will take time to internalize, which is not a bad thing! 

*Necessity and how it applies to the will of man given God's immutable decree and future tense truth propositions:*

Please bear with me through this section and it should all come together when we get to the section below on Adam. Lord willing.

Obviously Adam needed something additional to sustain him because given the circumstances presented to the soul he fell. Could Adam have defied the eternal decree anymore than Pilate? For Adam not to have fallen he would have needed to possess libertarian free will (LFW). Adam certainly possessed _liberty_, which is simply the ability to act according to one´s intention; he also possessed moral ability, which is the natural propensity or moral nature to act in a manner consistent with what is pleasing to God.

If it was true, prior to Adam falling, that he would fall, then it was philosophically false that he "œmight" (or might not) fall. Now we must be careful here lest we upset any Molinists who might be lurking. A few words on foreknowledge might be in order. Foreknowledge itself does not necessitate the occurrence of what is foreknown. Foreknowledge is receptive, not creative or causal. It presupposes but does not cause what will occur. This is easily recognized by the fact that Christians know that Christ will return to earth one day. The Christian´s knowledge of this fact does not ensure the consummation of what the fact contemplates. So in principle we can readily see that foreknowledge has no power. Although foreknowledge does not necessitate an event or ensure its occurrence, foreknowledge is only possible if the choices that are foreknown are determined and necessary. This too needs some elaboration.

Non-Calvinists and Calvinists agree that it is necessary that if God foreknows that Jones will choose X, then Jones will choose X. Only Calvinists believe that foreknown choices will occur by necessity as opposed to freely or purely contingently. Non-Calvinists believe that morally relevant choices although foreknown are not necessary but rather purely contingent and free. Furthermore, non-Calvinists are quick to point out that it can be fallacious to argue from the premise of God´s foreknowledge of outcomes to the necessity of those outcomes. The fallacy in view is that of transferring the necessity of the inference to the conclusion. That Jones will _necessarily_ choose X is not implied by the premise that _necessarily, if God foreknows that Jones will choose X, then Jones will choose X_. Accordingly, the Calvinist must establish that contingent choices are not feasible and that necessary choices do not destroy human accountability but are in fact the grounds for it. It is quite valid to argue: Necessarily, if God foreknows that Jones will choose X, then Jones will necessarily choose X; God foreknows that Jones will choose X; therefore, Jones will necessarily choose X -- _if the necessity of Jones´ choices is a necessary precondition for God´s foreknowledge of them. _

All that needs to be established to vindicate determinism, given that exhaustive foreknowledge is biblical, is that God cannot foreknow a choice that is purely contingent... If it is true that Jesus will return to earth one day, then it is false that Jesus might freely choose not to return. It is necessary that he choose to return since God cannot know that he might when while knowing full well that he will. The reason that God´s knowledge of future choices presupposes the necessity of those choices is because something that _might_ occur is contradictory to something that _will_ occur and contradictions are not knowable. For if God could know both that a choice might not be made while knowing it will be made, then things that might occur would require a probability equal to that of things that will occur, which would require that "œmight" mean "œwill!" If it is true that X might not occur then the current state of affairs that entails this truth cannot also entail either contradictory truth that X will or will not occur. What does it mean after all to say that something will happen that might or might not happen? If something is properly deemed possible, then it is believed that it might or might not occur. Are there any possibilities from God´s perspective? Are there any true possibilities after all!

It was true five hundred years before the crucifixion of our Lord that God knew 700 years before the crucifixion of the Lord that Jesus would be crucified at the hands of morally responsible persons. Consequently, it is not hard to understand that there exist future tense truth propositions that are necessary because the truth proposition exists yesterday yet that which it contemplates is still future. Assume that it was true in eternity that on April 25, 2023 I will go to Italy with my wife. Accordingly, the truth that I will go to Italy on that date was true prior to that date. Being true yesterday that I will go to Italy at a still future date, the truth proposition about the future is necessary because _the proposition existed in the past and everything from the past is now necessary!_ That the proposition is necessary means that what the declarative statement contemplates, namely my choice, is also necessary. It cannot be simultaneously true that I might go to Italy since it is necessary that I will since the truth that I will is past and, therefore, necessary. Moreover, might and will are semantically antithetical, as has already been shown. 

*HOW THIS APPLIES TO ADAM:*

At this juncture it has been established that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge, then choices must be necessary. God cannot know a choice that might or might not occur. The question that is now before us is what made the proposition about Adam´s future action true in eternity. For God to have known that Adam would choose X three things must have been true. God must have believed Adam would choose X; it must have been true that Adam would choose X; and God must have had warrant for believing that Adam would choose X. The reason that God believed Adam would choose X is because it was true that he would. The reason it was true was because God had determined that Adam would choose X. What else can be the source of the truth of the proposition that Adam would choose X? Certainly not Adam, since it was true that Adam would choose X prior to creation, was it not? If such truth exists outside of God and his determination, then something other than God and his will is eternal, which is heretical. God would be constrained by something other than his being and his desires. If such future tense truth propositions such as Adam would choose X are not according to God´s determination, then God must be informed, if he is to foreknow, by some entity other than his own determination. For the Arminian such truths are not determined, so they must exist in and of themselves. They must be ontologically necessary and, therefore, exist externally apart from God's attributes and eternal determination, which undermines the sole eternality of God and, therefore, the uniqueness of the ontological Trinity. 

To sum this up, if Jones´ (or Adam´s) choice of X is free, then it is possible that Jones choose X or not choose X. If it is true that Jones will choose X, then it is not possible that Jones will not choose X. Consequently, if it is true that Jones will choose X, then Jones´ choice of X will not be free. If Jones chooses not X (or X) freely, then it was not true that Jones would choose X, in which case God would not have known Jones´ choice. To refute Molinism all that needs to be established is that if it is true that Jones would choose X, then it must be false that he might not choose X. That´s a piece of cake due to the antithetical semantic relationship between would and might. *Every bit of this applies to Adam, for Adam did not lose LFW when he fell; he merely lost is moral ability to choose Godward.*

In sum, Adam was no less a slave to his strongest inclination at the moment of choice than an unconverted man. The issue is not whether Adam was created upright, which he was, but whether Adam possessed a radical freedom of the will that would have enabled him to choose contrary to how he intended. Such freedom, however, would destroy moral accountability for with such "freedom" one could end up intending to praise and end up cursing instead.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> But I really would like to know more about the mystery of sanctification.



Prayer, Word (preferably preached) and Sacrament. Partake often, by faith, with thanksgiving. Through these means of appointment _*God*_ will work in you both to will and, thereofore, do of His good pleasure. By grace, we grow in grace, seeing more and more clearly that we have been baptized into Christ's work, thereby gaining more confidence that we are truly accepted in the Beloved as true sons - solely on the basis of our union with Christ, who is our righteousness and our sanctification. Mere words? No, my brother. True, blessed realities... May we get as close to Christ as possible. Although scary at times, may we know him most deeply, even in his sufferings.

Unworthy but his, Amen.

Ron


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good stuff Ron. Thank you for those two posts.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Good stuff Ron. Thank you for those two posts.



Thank you SemperFidels! I hope the first one wasn't too long winded.

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ron,
That's all very rational, very neat. And once, I would have been happy to embrace the package. I'm sorry, but now I must disagree.

I have to point out that the criticisms leveled by Reformed theology (see the many posts above by Dr. RS Clark) to this _donum super additum_ view need to be answered, and they are not. It is not sufficient to show that a philosophically rational case for additional support (grace) for unfallen Adam exists. The _theological_ objections must also be met and adequately addressed, for they are built upon Scriptural support. The case must be made against it by an exegetical/biblical/systematic argument. And this just hasn't been done here.

I am not arguing that properly conducted theology is ever _irrational_ either. Merely pointing out that, as good as the case appears--and certainly you have set it forth ably--nevertheless, there are strong theological arguments against the position, none of which have been examined above.

This means that even if the philosophical case seemed impregnable, and withstood many a seige, not only would it be foolish to accept it as "true, because not (yet) falsified;" but it will not ultimately stand nor be proved rational in the end, even if that end is the Final Judgment, if it is unbiblical. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

Now a rationalist might object, decrying the historic Reformed position as "irrational" solely because an air-tight rational case has not been marshalled against it, or enough holes knocked in your argumentation to sink it. You may despise an appeal to "mystery". But nevertheless, that is what I, and Dr. RSC, and a constellation of greater and lesser Reformed lights from the past and the present are going to do.

Man was made upright and inclined to obedience to the will of his Maker, endowed with all the natural ability he needed to maintain his state. Yet he fell. God did not "take away" the proposed sustenance (grace) that supposedly kept him in the right way. And still Adam fell--not "from grace" but from righteousness. That is mystery. And it is the Bible's testimony.

[Edited on 3-2-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Ron

Bruce,

Please produce a theological argument in the in form of a syllogism, taking your premises from the Scriptures, that refutes my position _and does not undermine your Calvinism!_ In order to argue against my position, you must affirm libertarian free will, which would undermine your Calvinism. That´s your dilemma. No amount of mystery can save your contradictory views. If libertarian free will is false, then Adam did not have the ability not to fall. What Adam had was liberty, the ability to choose as he wanted. *If you wish to argue that he had more than that, namely the ability to choose contrary to how he would, then you will unwittingly forego the only grounds for moral accountability and affirm Arminianism!* Do you know why I say this?



> You may despise an appeal to "mystery". But nevertheless, that is what I, and Dr. RSC, and a constellation of greater and lesser Reformed lights from the past and the present are going to do.



I´m all for mystery. Our faith is built upon it. Let´s just not confuse mystery with arbitrariness and inconsistency. 

Could Adam have chosen contrary to his strongest inclination at the moment of choice? If not, then he could not have kept himself from falling. If Adam could have chosen contrary to his strongest inclination at the moment of choice, then it could not have been eternally true that Adam would fall, and Open Theism is correct doctrine! 

Moroever, I'm sure you affirm that concupiscence is sin. If so, then the sin nature is sin. If sinful choices / actions must come from a sinful nature, then obviously Adam's choice to sin was preceded by a nature and inclination that had already fallen and had a propensity to _act_ sinfully. Can you deny this progression? It uses your theology, after all. Consequently, Adam transitioned to a fallen state not by choice but by first having a fallen desire to sin, for which he was responsible for since it was _his_ sinful desire. Adam's choice to disobey God came from a tree that was already corrupt but not created that way. *Tell me after all, did Adam's choice to disobey God proceed from a desire that was inclined to obey God?!* 



> Man was made upright and inclined to obedience to the will of his Maker, endowed with all the natural ability he needed to maintain his state. Yet he fell. God did not "take away" the proposed sustenance (grace) that kept him in the right way, and still Adam fell--not "from grace" but from righteousness. That is mystery. And it is the Bible's testimony.



My brother, these are independent assertions but they do not comprise an argument. If you wish to interact with my arguments, I will be more than pleased to engage you on this matter. 

Kindly intended,

Ron


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Ron, here's is the theological argument Bruce is asking you to interact with. Note especially points 1 and 2. 



> WCF Ch. 9
> I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.[1]
> 
> 1. James 1:13-14; 4:7; Deut. 30:19; Isa. 7:11-12; Matt. 17:12; John 5:40
> 
> II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]
> 
> 2. Eccl. 7:29; Gen. 1:26, 31; Col. 3:10
> 3. Gen. 2:16-17; 3:6, 17
> 
> III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]
> 
> 4. Rom. 5:5; 8:7-8; John 6:44, 65; 15:5
> 5. Rom. 3:9-10, 12, 23
> 6. Eph. 2:1, 5; Col 2:13
> 7. John 3:3, 5-6; 6:44, 65; I Cor. 2:14; Titus 3:3-5
> 
> IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.[10]
> 
> 8. Col. 1:13; John 8:34, 36; Rom. 6:6-7
> 9. Phil. 2:13; Rom. 6:14, 17-19, 22
> 10. Gal. 5:17; Rom. 7:14-25; I John 1:8, 10
> 
> V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.[11]
> 
> 11. Heb. 12:23; I John 3:2; Jude 1:24; Rev. 21:27


----------



## Ron

Pat,

The Confession deals with "liberty" and the "moral ability" of the four states of man. It does not deal with power of contrary choice, which is libertarian free will.

Ron


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ron,
Let me preface the following (which is lengthy) by offering that it is possible that I have misunderstood your intention. So let me try to reset what I read you to advocate:

1) You appear to affirm, along with Saiph, the necessity of _supernatural grace,_ prior to the fall, in order for Adam and Eve to walk in righteousness. Later you write: "Obviously Adam needed something additional to sustain him because given the circumstances presented to the soul he fell."
---This has all the appearance of the Roman doctrine, and not the Reformation.

2) You wrote: "Adam did not choose this (sinful) intention to act contrary to God´s law; " because then all intentions must be chosen, and no one makes that many choices. There has to be a non-chosen starting point. This appears to necessitate the presence of a sinful nature out of which erupts the first sinful intention.
---Saying Adam's sin-nature is not his fault is deeply troubling to me. This is far too cut-and-dried, as I hope to explain below.

3) You write: "Adam certainly possessed liberty, which is simply the ability to act according to one´s intention;" Our Confession speaks of an unforced, "natural liberty" of the will that by nature is not absolutely determined to choose either good or evil. Ordinarily, this liberty is defined as the ability to act according to one's *nature*. So you appear to say that intention always comes out of nature, and is ever congruent with it. In your response to me you indicate that neither nature nor intention is originally the result of any human action, but precedes all action.
---Ordinariliy, this seems a reasonable conclusion. But Adam's condition does not correspond to any condition in our experience. He had a nature that was good, and yet God clearly places before him a real choice (despite the hidden decree) such that apparently his good nature did not preclude him from acting against it. His natural liberty was evidently more pronounced than ours who, being redeemed, have some measure of this power restored to us (being able not to sin).

4) You write: "he also possessed moral ability," Our Confession speaks of Adam's "freedom and power" to will and to do that which was good. And at the same moment, that possession of it was mutable, "so that he might fall from it."
---There is no indication that such mutability is the product of any non-inherent factor. The Confession is clear that it was not the moral ability/freedom and power that was changeable. No, the adverb modifies the verb "had", meaning possessed. He possessed those things after a mutable fashion as his created endowment.

5) You write: "Adam did not lose LFW when he fell; he merely lost is [sic] moral ability to choose Godward." By which I understand you to say that he did not lose the former, for he did not possess it to begin with. And he lost the latter in conjunction with or in consequence of the fall.
---But a sinful nature not being mutable, if Adam possessed a sinful nature in anticipation of the fall (for on this reckoning, how could a fall occur apart from a pre-existing sinful nature?) then there was no real loss of moral ability when he fell, for it was not in his power to choose Godward out of the sin nature. He had no power before the first stirrings of desire to take the fruit hit him.


That much I understand you to advocate, along with what I perceive are difficulties. What follows is my response to your response.


Ron,
When you say that, given my position, I have to affirm LFW (the philosophical principle that claims that man makes such free decisions as that God's foreordination is precluded) in order to speak intelligibly about Adam's inexplicable choice, _I deny._

Because I know God never suspended his controlling decree for a moment since creation. And I know that Adam was _indisputably_ predestined to fall, because I affirm the Sovereignty of God. Certainly from the standpoint of the decree Adam could not have not fallen. Because it happened. Therefore we know it was sure in retrospect. *I reject the false-alternative fallacy.*

And I affirm that outside the decree Adam had real liberty of choice, even to the point of contradicting his nature. The Standards call that "being left to the freedom of their own will." He was created wise (Col. 3:10), but could play the fool (Ecc. 7:29). His constitution was upright _and_ he was _posse pecare,_ capable of losing his estate as soon as he was created. This was the first estate, and if it seems impossible for us in our fallen or redeemed estates to adequately grasp Adam's powers, that is no argument of their lack of reality, given the testimony of Scripture.

I will *not* affirm any position that actually evaporates moral accountability. Neither will I affirm a position whereby _creaturliness itself,_ apart from divine props, necessitates a fall. God decreed not merely Adam's "final act" but the complex of motivations within. He is the orderer of all "second causes", yet so as he is not the Author of any sin (WCF 3.1, 5.2).

I readily accept some "inclination*S*" back of Adam's choice. But how and when in the event came to be the "tipping point" over into sin (when God had made him "very good"), I have no idea. And the Reformed world has consistently affirmed this mystery.

All you have done is change the question from "how could he perform this rebellious act?" to "how could he have been motivated to rebel?" I don't know, and as far as I can tell no one has found a Scriptural "explanation" for how a man, inclined to do righteousness and supported by all the inducements to obedience imaginable, nevertheless found the motivation and chose to disobey God instead. Adam attempted to choose autonomy, and made himself twice a slave.

Long ago, Rome adopted the solution of "privation". But this was not finally buttressed by Scripture, but by neo-platonism (Augustin) and Aristotelian (thomistic) philosophy. Your position, so far as I can discern it from the posts so far (including the reasoning in the posts before your/my entry into the discussion), is indistinguishable from Augustin and Thomas, from Rome and some Federal Vision folks. In the posts above, you are affirming grace before the fall in the vein of the _donum super additum_. You are offering an answer to the perennial dilemma that appears to deny Adam's inherent power to obey, as constituted a creature, without special grace. For all the reasons discussed above, I cannot accept this solution to the dilemma.

I think the "strongest motivation" simplisticly implies that all our motivations exist in an ordered hierarchy, and that this is the only proper way to view human action. I disagree. We may be "sufficiently motivated" to a course of action by a multitude of factors, some quantifiable, some not.

We can definitely say we always "do what we want" in the absence of actual coersion (for then it is not we doing, but being pushed like a broom). But our motivations are multiple, and may even be contrary on occasion. Within us, both a sinful motive and a proper motive may both spur us on toward an action! Which is stronger? How do you know? Does the sinful motive, if it is stronger (God knows) obliterate the "goodness" of the act and the good motive? I say all this to show that an appeal to "the strongest motive" is reductionistic. Useful sometimes, but not definitive.

Adam gave in to temptation in ideal circumstances, whereas Jesus did not under worse conditions. Did Jesus experience real temptation in the wilderness? Yes. Could he see the lying "benefits" that Satan blandished before him? Yes. Could he have fallen? No, never, for his divine nature--not a _donum super additum_--precluded such. Yet he was truly tempted to the final degree, and never gave in. He resisted the devil, and ever put him to flight.

All of our sins, including Adam's sin, are the result of our giving in to temptation before it peters out. And now man without Christ doesn't even want to resist sin. He is only able to sin. The redeemed don't get back the supposed pre-fall _donum._ They receive back the *creation nature* in principle, and receive saving, regenerating grace, but are renewed in the image of Christ, not Adam. They are capable of not sinning. And in glory will there be _donum_ in that advancement? No. But perfecting grace due to union with Christ, and sin will be no more. The sin-nature will be eradicated, root and branch. We will eternally be the redeemed-by-grace.

Concupiscence=strong, uncontrollable evil desire, lust. Is this itself sin? Yes. Is the sin-nature sin? Yes, in our current condition our desire for sin is ungovernable. So the sin-nature includes concupiscence. But did Adam have concupiscence before the fall? That is the $64,000 question. Jesus did not have concupiscence! So why do we suppose Adam should have? Because he fell? But now you are saying that Adam had a sin-nature before he fell! *This is untenable.* Scripture presents the incident in the garden as a single event, culminating in the act of taking and eating. At the beginning Adam is in innocence. At the end, he is sinful. As he falls, he becomes sinful. Nothing else will do justice to the account of the fall.

At the place where Adam and Eve determine to put the Word of the Lord to a test, to assume "neutrality", they have become rebels. For they have really already accepted Satan's Word over God's. This is progression indeed, but it cannot be ascribed to the outworking of an already depraved nature. That is simply not how Scripture describes Adam and Eve (Eph. 4:24). They were not "deprived" of that "grace" which kept them whole from their first moment of existence. They were "deprived" of "additional assistance" that they neither asked for, nor were entitled to demand.

You say Adam's transition to a sinful estate was not a product of choice, but results from a having a sinful nature and desires already. So where is the transition at all? Do you assume the removal of grace? Furthermore you say Adam was culpable by reason of the first stirrings of _his-own_ sinful desire. Hitherto kept in check? How is this different from Roman theology?

Syllogism?
God made man "very good"/"holy"/"righteous".
Righteous men choose to do righteousness.
(insert mystery here)
therefore: Righteous man (nevertheless) chose to do unrighteousness.

How does this affirmation undermine my Calvinism? I deny.


You do not like my counter-assertion. That's fine. It is Confessional doctrine I have already sworn an oath to (3.1; 4.2; 5.2, 4; 6.1, 2; 9.2; 19.1). It is already proven. As I said, I am not going to attempt to poke holes in the deterministic rationale presented (clothed in predestinarian garb). I think that it is sufficient to appeal to the statements of Scripture that contradict that rationale. Your whole initial post contained not one Bible reference, no Scriptural syllogism of your own, merely a series of arguments that, in the end, denies 1) Man's creation in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; 2) power to stay therein; 3) every inducement to continue in fellowship with God; and 4) freedom of will (see WLC 17, 20, 21).

And brother, I also trust that it was not your intention to deny the Confession to which you also have sworn an oath. In all my exchanges on the board, I hope to grow in grace, and pray my brethren do as well. Where I am at fault or faithful, may God grant me wisdom to cleave to the truth.

Peace,

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Ron

> 1) You appear to affirm, along with Saiph, the necessity of supernatural grace, prior to the fall, in order for Adam and Eve to walk in righteousness. Later you write: "Obviously Adam needed something additional to sustain him because given the circumstances presented to the soul he fell."
> ---This has all the appearance of the Roman doctrine, and not the Reformation.



Dear Bruce,

When I say that Adam needed something additional, I am not saying that he needed an internal work of the Spirit. I am saying that he needed a different state of affairs presented to soul or God to have pre-interpreted the circumstances Adam found himself in differently. In other words, Adam either needed a different state of affairs or a different decree of behavior given the same state of affairs. 



> 2) You wrote: "Adam did not choose this (sinful) intention to act contrary to God´s law; " because then all intentions must be chosen, and no one makes that many choices. There has to be a non-chosen starting point. This appears to necessitate the presence of a sinful nature out of which erupts the first sinful intention.---Saying Adam's sin-nature is not his fault is deeply troubling to me. This is far too cut-and-dried, as I hope to explain below.



Who said that Adam was not responsible for his sin nature? You´re responsible for your sin nature, not by imputation but because it´s yours.



> You write: "Adam certainly possessed liberty, which is simply the ability to act according to one´s intention;" Our Confession speaks of an unforced, "natural liberty" of the will that by nature is not absolutely determined to choose either good or evil. Ordinarily, this liberty is defined as the ability to act according to one's nature.



Our intentions are always consistent with our nature. Liberty is the ability to act according one´s intention and the intention is always consistent with the nature. 



> So you appear to say that intention always comes out of nature, and is ever congruent with it.



Our intentions are always congruent with our nature. I don´t know what "œcomes out of nature" means. The intention is not caused by the nature. The intention is caused by the state of affairs presented to the soul, as Dabney would put it. 



> In your response to me you indicate that neither nature nor intention is originally the result of any human action, but precedes all action.



That´s correct, narrowly considered. Certainly choices can contribute to future states of affairs and also future intentions. Notwithstanding, no intention or nature is chosen. 



> "¦Adam's condition does not correspond to any condition in our experience. He had a nature that was good, and yet God clearly places before him a real choice (despite the hidden decree) such that apparently his good nature did not preclude him from acting against it. His natural liberty was evidently more pronounced than ours who, being redeemed, have some measure of this power restored to us (being able not to sin).



True. Adam´s nature was mutable. 



> You write: "Adam did not lose LFW when he fell; he merely lost is [sic] moral ability to choose Godward." By which I understand you to say that he did not lose the former, for he did not possess it to begin with. And he lost the latter in conjunction with or in consequence of the fall.



Yes



> if Adam possessed a sinful nature in anticipation of the fall (for on this reckoning, how could a fall occur apart from a pre-existing sinful nature?)



Adam´s first sin was his _propensity_ to act sinfully, from which a specific intention to act sinfully proceeded. *To deny this is to argue that Adam acted sinfully with a propensity and inclination to act uprightly. If Adam acted sinfully when his strongest inclination at the moment of choice was to act uprightly, then he could not be held responsible for his action of sin. It would have been a purely contingent act and, therefore, not one that he intended.*



> And I affirm that outside the decree Adam had real liberty of choice, even to the point of contradicting his nature.



You´re painting this with too broad a brush. First off, "œoutside the decree" is philosophically meaningless because we do not operate "œoutside" of God´s decree. Secondly, "œchoice" is not "œaction," so if you are not equivocating over terms, then you might be introducing terms that are not germane to the specifics of this discussion. The _choice_ was presented to a man who was upright. The _action_ was made in accordance to an intention, as all actions are if they are real choices made in accordance with liberty, the ability to choose as one wants. *We both agree that the action was sinful. The question is whether a sinful action can proceed from a pure intention. Can a choice to sin proceed from a strongest inclination that is not sinful? Can morally relevant choices be contrary to the strongest inclination at the moment of choice? If not, then the choice to sin must have proceeded from an inclination to sin! And a sinful inclination can only come from a nature that is already fallen.*



> Your position, so far as I can discern it from the posts so far (including the reasoning in the posts before your/my entry into the discussion), is indistinguishable from Augustin and Thomas, from Rome and some Federal Vision folks.



I find this all rather amusing. Can you produce quotes from these men and groups that affirm that Adam´s first sin was his first inclination to sin and not his action that proceeded from that inclination? Moreover, all these folks affirm the Trinity. Should I abandon my belief in that too? Sir, you should keep in mind that to bear false witness is"¦ well I´ll just say - not wise. Do Federal Vision folks speak on this matter? It seems to me that you might have some bottled-up anger that you are unleashing upon me in a most inappropriate way. Someone warned me about this site just today, saying that as a hobby-horse Federal Vision was the whipping boy of the season. I have no time for such nonsense. 



> We may be "sufficiently motivated" to a course of action by a multitude of factors, some quantifiable, some not.



Yes, so what? We are sufficiently motivated by the relevant state of affairs, whatever constitutes them. That begs the question of whether a sinful action can proceed from a non-sinful motivation. If it can´t, then the strongest inclination at the moment of choice to act sinfully was therefore sin. *There´s no mystery here, sir. There are only two possibilities. Either the strongest inclination to act sinfully was a sinful inclination or it wasn´t. If it wasn´t, then the strongest inclination to act uprightly was followed by a sinful action, which would destroy the moral relevancy of the action since it would not have been according to what was intended at the moment of choice! If the strongest inclination was sinful, then the first sin was Adam´s inclination to act sinfully and not the action that followed from the sinful inclination. It´s not any harder than that.*



> Within us, both a sinful motive and a proper motive may both spur us on toward an action! Which is stronger? How do you know? Does the sinful motive, if it is stronger (God knows) obliterate the "goodness" of the act and the good motive? I say all this to show that an appeal to "the strongest motive" is reductionistic. Useful sometimes, but not definitive.



This seems rather confused to me, so I´ll pass. 



> Adam gave in to temptation in ideal circumstances, whereas Jesus did not under worse conditions. Did Jesus experience real temptation in the wilderness? Yes. Could he see the lying "benefits" that Satan blandished before him? Yes. Could he have fallen? No, never, for his divine nature--not a donum super additum--precluded such. Yet he was truly tempted to the final degree, and never gave in. He resisted the devil, and ever put him to flight.



I agree. 



> All of our sins, including Adam's sin, are the result of our giving in to temptation before it peters out. And now man without Christ doesn't even want to resist sin. He is only able to sin. The redeemed don't get back the supposed pre-fall donum. They receive back the creation nature in principle, and receive saving, regenerating grace, but are renewed in the image of Christ, not Adam. They are capable of not sinning.



I disagree that the converted are "œcapable of not sinning" this side of glory. All our works are tainted with sin while we´re in this body of death. 



> But did Adam have concupiscence before the fall? That is the $64,000 question. Jesus did not have concupiscence! So why do we suppose Adam should have? Because he fell?



I hope you are not thinking that I believe that Adam was born with concupiscence. Of course he wasn´t. 



> But now you are saying that Adam had a sin-nature before he fell!



Wow, you really haven´t understood a word I´ve said. In one sense I´m relieved. I am not saying that Adam had a sin nature before the fall. I am saying that at the logical moment Adam had a sinful inclination, the fall occurred. The sinful inclination constituted the fall in other words. The action, as it were, that proceeded from the sinful inclination was necessary due to the preceding inclination to act sinfully. 



> Scripture presents the incident in the garden as a single event, culminating in the act of taking and eating. At the beginning Adam is in innocence. At the end, he is sinful. As he falls, he becomes sinful. Nothing else will do justice to the account of the fall.



There´s that broad brush again. 



> You say Adam's transition to a sinful estate was not a product of choice, but results from a having a sinful nature and desires already.



This too is wrong. Again, you have not understood my position even in the least. The first part is correct, that Adam´s transition to a sinful estate was not a product of choice. But, neither was it the result of "œhaving a sinful nature and desire already." The transition was not a _result_ of having a sinful nature. The transition was at the _logical point of the ontological change_. 



> Syllogism?
> God made man "very good"/"holy"/"righteous".
> Righteous men choose to do righteousness.
> (insert mystery here)
> therefore: Righteous man (nevertheless) chose to do unrighteousness.
> 
> How does this affirmation undermine my Calvinism? I deny.



Go see my first post on future tense truth propositions. 



> I said, I am not going to attempt to poke holes in the deterministic rationale presented (clothed in predestinarian garb).



Yes, I do see that you are not going to attempt to refute the arguments that are before. 



> I think that it is sufficient to appeal to the statements of Scripture that contradict that rationale. Your whole initial post contained not one Bible reference, no Scriptural syllogism of your own, merely a series of arguments that, in the end, denies 1) Man's creation in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; 2) power to stay therein; 3) every inducement to continue in fellowship with God; and 4) freedom of will (see WLC 17, 20, 21).



This is rather unfortunate of you to speak this way; especially in light of the imprecision and broad brush proof-texting of both the Confession and Scripture you have offered. 

Please bear no more false witness against my position and I´ll be fine agreeing to disagree. I'm fine either way. I am just concerned for you.

Your brother in Christ,

Ron


----------



## mybigGod

The confession states that mans will was mutible. Obviously after the fall mans will was in bondage. This distinction has not been brought out. I see in the mutible state that man being righteous was subject to weakness. Weakness is not a sin but it is a very important part of choice. We can want to choose the good but if the weight of the bad habit is heaveir than the desire to do good we will choose the bad.
In the garden the will was subject to change. That does speak to the ability of man as a predispostion which is more in line with the predispostion power to choose which does not have evil as its source.

"And therefore, if more were still added to their strength, to a certain degree, it would make the difficulty so great, that it would be wholly impossible to surmount it; for this plain reason, because whatever power men may be supposed to have to surmount difficulties, yet that power is not infinite; and so goes not beyond certain limits. If a man can surmount ten degrees of difficulty of this kind with twenty degrees of strength, because the degrees of strength are beyond the degrees of difficulty; yet if the difficulty be increased to thirty, or an hundred, or a thousand degrees, and his strength not also increased, his strength will be wholly insufficient to surmount the difficulty. "J Edwards

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by mybigGod]


----------



## Ron

> The confession states that mans will was mutible. Obviously after the fall mans will was in bondage. This distinction has not been brought out.



Hi Tom,

That man was in "œbondage" after the fall is true. What relevance does that have to this discussion?



> I see in the mutible state that man being righteous was subject to weakness. Weakness is not a sin but it is a very important part of choice. We can want to choose the good but if the weight of the bad habit is heaveir than the desire to do good we will choose the bad.



Adam had not "œbad habit" prior to the fall. 



> In the garden the will was subject to change. That does speak to the ability of man as a predispostion which is more in line with the predispostion power to choose which does not have evil as its source.



This statement is somewhat cryptic, at least to me.



> "And therefore, if more were still added to their strength, to a certain degree, it would make the difficulty so great, that it would be wholly impossible to surmount it; for this plain reason, because whatever power men may be supposed to have to surmount difficulties, yet that power is not infinite; and so goes not beyond certain limits. If a man can surmount ten degrees of difficulty of this kind with twenty degrees of strength, because the degrees of strength are beyond the degrees of difficulty; yet if the difficulty be increased to thirty, or an hundred, or a thousand degrees, and his strength not also increased, his strength will be wholly insufficient to surmount the difficulty. "J Edwards



Don´t you just love Edwards!

Tom, the point of the discussion is that Adam´s sinful action must have been in accordance with an overall inclination to act as he did, lest his action was unintended and, therefore, morally irrelevant. Since a sinful action cannot come from an inclination to please God, then it must be true that Adam had a sinful inclination prior to his sinful action; his action was the sinful movement that was congruent with the sinful inclination. The sinful inclination, which was sin, was not chosen, nor could it have been! Every time we act sinfully our inclination toward a particular sinful action is sin in and of itself, yet such sinful inclinations are not chosen. We are responsible for every un-chosen sinful inclination, so why not Adam?

Ron


----------



## mybigGod

Tom, the point of the discussion is that Adam´s sinful action must have been in accordance with an overall inclination to act as he did, lest his action was unintended and, therefore, morally irrelevant. Since a sinful action cannot come from an inclination to please God, then it must be true that Adam had a sinful inclination prior to his sinful action; his action was the sinful movement that was congruent with the sinful inclination. The sinful inclination, which was sin, was not chosen, nor could it have been! Every time we act sinfully our inclination toward a particular sinful action is sin in and of itself, yet such sinful inclinations are not chosen. We are responsible for every un-chosen sinful inclination, so why not Adam?

Ron 
Ron the point Edwards is making is that the reason we choose evil is not necessarily because of sinful inclinations but because we do not have the will to choose good. That is what is involved in choice. We have no right to blame sin for our bad choices. I can quote him on this one. So you pre fall theory lacks sense. Adam chose to sin because he lacked the will to choose obedience. We need to keep the majors major and the minors minor. Thats what Edwards does, look there are alot of reasons we choose one thing over another, but when it comes down to it we choose based apoun our lack of will the sin side.


----------



## Ron

> Ron the point Edwards is making is that the reason we choose evil is not necessarily because of sinful inclinations but because we do not have the will to choose good.



Tom,

I'm afraid you don't understand Edwards. Edwards thesis is that we choose according to our strongest inclination _necessarily_. Moroever, Edwards defines the will as the faculty of choice, or that by which the mind chooses. Accordingly, to say that one does not have the "will" to choose God, means that one does not have the inclination to choose God. However, a choice is made just the same, which is according to an inclination, is it not? *When the choice is sinful, so must be the inclincation, otherwise the choice would not be morally relevenat for it would occur for no reason whatsoever.*



> We have no right to blame sin for our bad choices.



I agree and nothing I said contradicts this.



> Adam chose to sin because he lacked the will to choose obedience.



*sigh* Did Adam choose to act without an inclination to act?!




> We need to keep the majors major and the minors minor. Thats what Edwards does, look there are alot of reasons we choose one thing over another, but when it comes down to it we choose based apoun our lack of will the sin side.



I think you need to internalize Edwards a bit more. He's most worthy of your time. If you care to respond, maybe you wouldn't object to putting your thoughts into a formal argument that takes a valid form. 

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## mybigGod

In this discussion you are saying that man must have a sin nature in order to have a pre disposition to choose to sin. Yet man has a free will pryer to the new birth. How can man be held responsible if in his inability if he forms a system that blames sin directly for his bad choices or his inability to choose spiritual good. This is not logical and is not what inability is all about. You are misrepresenting edwards postion. Man sins because he is responsible for the lack of will, and not because of Gods imputation of sin.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by mybigGod_
> In this discussion you are saying that man must have a sin nature in order to have a pre disposition to choose to sin.



This statement is a bit confused to me. A sin nature _is_ the disposition to sin; the disposition does not proceed from the nature.



> Yet man has a free will pryer to the new birth.



Man never has libertarian freedom. I thought you were Edwardsian.



> How can man be held responsible if in his inability if he forms a system that blames sin directly for his bad choices or his inability to choose spiritual good.



The "sytem" one "forms" is subjective and not relevant. Do you know what you want to ask?



> Man sins because he is responsible for the lack of will, and not because of Gods imputation of sin.



Nobody is talking about imputation, so get that thought out of your mind. Man's fallen condition is a necessary condition for his sinful actions. The question we are supposed to be discussing is whether Adam's first sinful *action* of the mind choosing proceeded from a pure intention or an intention to sin. It must have been the latter since we act according to what our intentions contemplate, which is the basis for moral accountability. Yes, man is responsible for his lack of desire to please God, and this too his sin. When Adam was first void of this desire, he was not void of it without also having a fallen nature, for such a lack of desire to please God is indeed the consequence of a fallen nature. 

I feel like I'm picking sand with tweezers and you keep shoveling dirt.

Ron


----------



## mybigGod

Thanks i am doing the best i can. So bear with my reasoning. I can sense we are on opposite sides of this issue. I Will spueeze this fruit until i get every las t drop, no punn intended. What you are saying is that grace was a power to effect the proper choice pryor to the choice to sin in the garden. When the grace was witheld then sin entered and man fell. So grace equals God is responsible because God chose to withhold grace and man lost the power to choose good.
So now man is in bondage to sin and sins because he has a sin nature and he chooses to sin because of that desire he has in himself from the nature of sin. IT seems that you are saying man is responsible but you are in you r reasoning are blamin g God. God withheld His grace, man was unable to choose not to eat, he was not responsible for the lack of desire to choose good.


----------



## Ron

> IT seems that you are saying man is responsible but you are in you r reasoning are blamin g God. God withheld His grace, man was unable to choose not to eat, he was not responsible for the lack of desire to choose good.



Tom,

God is responsible for creation, preservation and redemption. Every bit of it! What needs to be nuanced is that *responsibility is not a sufficient condition for culpability.* God has a sufficient reason for the sin he ordains. Man is responsible for his intentions and his choices because they are _his_ intentions and choices. There's no contradiction here; if you think there is one, then please show - with precision and brevity - how the law of non-contradiction is being violated.

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## Ron

http://board.derekwebb.com/viewtopic.php?t=17164&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0:


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ron, et al.,
I have pressing duties to which I must attend. I cannot respond as I would like. Just a few words are in order, and they are mostly unrelated to the substance of the discussion.

1)


> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> Your position, so far as I can discern it from the posts so far (including the reasoning in the posts before your/my entry into the discussion), is indistinguishable from Augustin and Thomas, from Rome and some Federal Vision folks.
> 
> 
> 
> I find this all rather amusing. Can you produce quotes from these men and groups that affirm that Adam´s first sin was his first inclination to sin and not his action that proceeded from that inclination? Moreover, all these folks affirm the Trinity. Should I abandon my belief in that too? Sir, you should keep in mind that to bear false witness is"¦ well I´ll just say - not wise. Do Federal Vision folks speak on this matter? It seems to me that you might have some bottled-up anger that you are unleashing upon me in a most inappropriate way. Someone warned me about this site just today, saying that as a hobby-horse Federal Vision was the whipping boy of the season. I have no time for such nonsense.
Click to expand...




> Please bear no more false witness against my position and I´ll be fine agreeing to disagree. I'm fine either way. I am just concerned for you.


It goes practically without saying that the internet is *notoriously* impersonal. Therefore, any disagreement is open to the widest possible interpretation. We react to no verbal cues or personal mannerisms the way we do in ordinary conversation, or even over the phone. Thus it is even more imperative that we focus on the words themselves, trying not to import any inconsiderate or inappropriate nuance to them.

Note the above quote from me by Ron. In it I _plainly_ state that what follows is my disernment or perception of Ron's position--a perception that is the product of the flow of the thread from beginning up to his post that I am interacting with. It should be manifest that my perception may be correct or erroneous. But at no point do I claim with any degree of authority: "Ron, this is your position," nor state a conclusion evidently based on gross ignorance--i.e. not even reading what he wrote. I don't think anyone could have read my posts and come to _that_ conclusion.

Background:
Prior to Ron's entering the discussion, Saiph's stance was controverted by Dr. RSC. Ron "appeared to me" to come to the defense of Saiph's stance. Dr. RSC made mention of the outside entities referred to, and I have respect to his judgment. Therefore, I think it reasonable that someone coming to defend Saiph's stance has to contend with the charges against that stance from the previous 50 posts or so. This thread is admittedly a limited context. However it contains a few quotes from at least Augustin and Thomas relevant to the thread. And statements from "competent authority", such as a Professor of Church History at a premier seminary. If I have misapplied them to Ron's thought, then of course I owe him an apology. But being wrong is not a sin.

Ron finds my perception (my blindness? my error?) amusing. Instead of correcting me, or showing how _the quotes and comments already present in this thread-context_ do not, in fact, have any bearing on the present state of the discussion (but I did not speak in a vacuum), I am "advised" or "reminded" that false-witness is a serious offense. This statement is a hairs-breadth from a direct accusation of lying perjury. Am I in danger of making false-witness against the outside entities, or against Ron? Both? *I appeal to the rest of the thread.* If that information is _bad,_ or misapplied, then I am in error, but I am not false-witnessing.

And yet, at the end of the post I am asked:


> Please bear no more false witness against my position.


Technically, even if I had a strange desire, I could not "bear false witness" against a position, but only against a person. I can be in error about a position; I can falsely ascribe a position to another person. This, too, is an nearly-direct accusation of me being a false-witness against Ron.

But in addition, Ron tells me one of his "perceptions"--it "seems to him" that I am inappropriately unleashing bottled-up anger upon him. Is he entitled to his opinion about my frame of mind or heart? Yes, although I would prefer that he kept that opinion to himself and dealt exclusively with the merits or demerits of my written statements. If what "seems" to him is wrong, ... then Prov. 10:18 is perhaps just as applicable to him as me?

Titus 1:7 says an elder must be "not quickly angered," and 1 Tim. 3:2, "temperate [and] self-controlled." If Ron really were accusing me, _and not merely stating what seems to him to be the case,_ it would be a serious accusation indeed--one where I might even merit the discipline of suspension from my office, as one found unfit according to the standards of the Word. This would be as serious a charge as the false-witness charge.

Strong, disagreeing opinions are not necessarily angry opinons, or personal hostility. Again, the impersonal internet medium is uncondusive to attitudinal display. Hence the widespread use of the "emoticon" smileys, etc., to put them on display. Surely, some of Ron's comments could be (mis)read as angry retorts, or snide commentary. But it wouldn't be fair to read attitude into them. I think the same courtesy is in order, in the absence of name-calling, profanity, internet "shouting" (i.e. whole sentences and paragraphs in capitals), and what have you.

Thankfully, its only your perception, Ron. I accept that, unpleasant as it is. I certainly bear some portion of the responsibility for other men's perception of me. If possible, as far as in me lies, I want to be at peace with everyone. So, Ron, I'll try not to give you that impression in the future. Thanks for your concern.


Other points:
2) I think Dabney's Systematic is most apropo and relevant to the larger discussion, specifically his lectures on Covenant of Works through the Fall. Some of the best material (In my humble opinion) is on or around pages 311-12, I believe. He also takes issue with Edwards at one point, but I am not sure whether that disagreement is germane to the exchanges above, and I cannot investigate further at this time.

3) I again apologize where I have failed to grasp anyone's statements or arguments up to this point, or for being unclear myself concerning points of doctrine I hold dear. To this moment, I find myself aligned dogmatically to Dabney, so far as I understand him to be dogmatic. I fully admit to the unknown mystery to which he also admits. And I reserve myself from dogmatic committments _to the same degree as Dabney himself_ where he offers his conjecture.


Forgive me, I must (!) exit.


----------



## Ron

Pastor,

Your most recent post might be the most innacurate of all.

Ron


----------



## Ron

Look at it this way, if Adam and Eve refrained from eating simply because they were dieting, their hearts were nonetheless far from God since they lusted after what was forbidden. Jesus is not a legalist, nor is the Father. The fall was the spiritual adultery that occurred prior to _acting_ upon the first sinful desire! It's really that simple. 

Ron


----------



## mybigGod

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> IT seems that you are saying man is responsible but you are in you r reasoning are blamin g God. God withheld His grace, man was unable to choose not to eat, he was not responsible for the lack of desire to choose good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> God is responsible for creation, preservation and redemption. Every bit of it! What needs to be nuanced is that *responsibility is not a sufficient condition for culpability.* God has a sufficient reason for the sin he ordains. Man is responsible for his intentions and his choices because they are _his_ intentions and choices. There's no contradiction here; if you think there is one, then please show - with precision and brevity - how the law of non-contradiction is being violated.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Here is the truth, man had the ability to obey Gods command not to eat of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil in himself. He had a free choice. There are only two representatives in the human race. There is the first man adam and the second man Christ. If the first mans weaker desire was in some way related to the presences of grace then the second man would be culpable for the first mans sin. The point in the gospel logic is that the second man in Himself did what the first man in himself could not do. If you reason any other way then you cut out the profound elements in the individual doctrines of law and grace that Christ life and death brought into reality for His own. Just give me back my puritians.


----------



## Ron

> Here is the truth, man had the ability to obey Gods command not to eat of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil in himself.



Tom,

Did Adam have contra-causal freedom, which is libertarian free will?

Was Adam's action of eating according to his strongest inclination at the moment of choice?

Did Adam choose his inclination to eat? 

If Adam intended to eat but was tackled, would his intention that he was not at liberty to act upon been sin?

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## mybigGod

Actually, the strongest desire to do evil has many circumstancial designs in that desire, granted the desire is present because of the presence of sin but its strength is not only determined by inward workings but what comes from the outside. Its strength and its ability to flourish is not always processed rationally. I am speaking here of post fall.
Now in the garden man had only the desire to do good, that is he had no competing desire ,inwardly. Yet his will was mutible so that it was susceptible to other powers to weaken its strength. The question here is if man had the ability within himself to resist any power to out weigh his desire to do good. Adam must have had that ability because he choose to disobey knowingly. The question is was it an intellectual knowlege or was it an intimate knowlege? It was the only choice made that had a desire to do good known intimately yet choose to disobey inspite of that knowlege. There were no irrational abilities pryer to the desire to sin. 
Was the desire to fall with the woman stronger than the desire to obey God? Im not so sure that this concept entered into his rational process pryer to the act. Scripture evidence?


----------



## Ron

We cannot have rational intercourse if you continue not to answer any of my questions. I'm getting private messages and e-mails from lurkers from another board, etc., saying how clear I've been, so I'll take that as a cue to move on. If you don't understand by now, I can't help you for I've done all I can do.

So long.

Ron


----------



## mybigGod

Look Ron, the point you have made over and over has been the desire preceeded the choice. I know that , but there are other circumstances that go into what makes a desire stronger or weaker. You just keep repeating yourself. I have acknowleged that desire preceeds choice. My point is there is much more in this whole pre fall "willing "than your montra.


----------



## Ron

Tom,

Let´s review the bidding.



> Ron the point Edwards is making is that the reason we choose evil is not necessarily because of sinful inclinations but because we do not have the will to choose good.



The following two propositions are true: _"If lack of desire to choose righteousness, then desire to choose to sin."_ And, _"If desire to choose sin, then lack of desire to choose righteousness."_ The antecedent and consequent can be reversed because the propositions are tautological! To have a lack of desire for righteousness is to have a desire to sin. One doesn´t logically precede the other for they mean the same thing! Consequently, the following statement of yours must be false: _"œthe reason we choose evil is not *necessarily* because of sinful inclinations but because we do not have the will to choose good."_ Tell me, Tom, can you imagine a lack of inclination to choose righteousness that would not be accompanied by an inclination to sin? Can you imagine the reverse being true, that an inclination to sin not be accompanied by lack of inclination to choose righteousness? No such states of affairs exist because a lack of desire for righteousness and a desire to sin are necessary conditions for each other respectively because they mean the same thing! 



> We have no right to blame sin for our bad choices.



What is being argued is that Adam´s first sin was not an action toward the fruit, for if it was then he could have been prevented from sinning had Eve tackled him! Tom, his inclination was for the fruit, which was sin! Moreover, if Adam´s first sin was an action of the mind choosing and not his fallen desire, then the action would have proceeded from a heart that was still inclined toward righteousness, which would mean that Adam intended not to act sinfully but did so anyway according to chaotic causes contrary to his intention.



> So you pre fall theory lacks sense.



That´s quite a remarkable comment given your inability to deal with the thesis that is before you. 



> Adam chose to sin because he lacked the will to choose obedience.



See above



> Man sins because he is responsible for the lack of will, and not because of Gods imputation of sin.



How long would you like me to wait for you to catch up with the discussion?



> How can man be held responsible if in his inability if he forms a system that blames sin directly for his bad choices or his inability to choose spiritual good.



The bus is pulling a way from the curb, Tom.



> IT seems that you are saying man is responsible but you are in you r reasoning are blamin g God. God withheld His grace, man was unable to choose not to eat, he was not responsible for the lack of desire to choose good.



The bus is heading down the street, Tom. 



> Here is the truth, man had the ability to obey Gods command not to eat of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil in himself.



If Adam still had the ability to act in righteousness at the logical moment he acted, then his inclination must still have been toward righteousness and not toward sin. However, Adam acted in _unrighteousness_, which presupposes that his inclination was already toward unrighteousness, lest he had contra-causal freedom - which you say he did not have!

The bus is out of sight, over the horizon... 


Ron


----------



## mybigGod

Moral Inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination; or the strength of a contrary inclination; or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the Will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary. Or both these may be resolved into one; and it may be said in one word, that moral Inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For when a person is unable to will or choose such a thing, through a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, it is the same thing as his being unable through the want of an inclination, or the prevalence of a contrary inclination, in such circumstances, and under the influence of such views. J Edwards

Ron you are mis -stating my case. I dont have the time rite now will get back latter. You are confusing my post fall with my pre fall.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by mybigGod]


----------



## Ron

Tom,

I might not be interacting with what you _mean_ but I am certainly interacting with what you are _saying_. 

Ron


----------



## mybigGod

Here it may be noted, that there is a circumstantial difference between the moral Agency of a ruler and a subject. I call it circumstantial, because it lies only in the difference of moral inducements, by which they are capable of being influenced, arising from the difference of circumstance. A ruler, acting in that capacity only, is not capable of being influenced by a moral law, and its sanctions of threatenings and promises, rewards and punishments, as the subject is; though both may be influenced by a knowledge of moral good and evil. And therefore the moral Agency of the Supreme Being, who acts only in the capacity of a ruler towards his creatures, and never as a adjunct, differs in that respect from the moral Agency of created intelligent beings. God's actions, and particularly those which he exerts as a moral governor, have moral qualifications, and are morally good in the highest degree. They are most perfectly holy and righteous; and we must conceive of Him as influenced, in the highest degree, by that which, above all others, is properly a moral inducement; viz. the moral good which He sees in such and such things: and therefore He is, in the most proper sense, a moral Agent, the source of all moral ability and Agency, the fountain and rule of all virtue and moral good; though by reason of his being supreme over all, it is not possible He should be under the influence of law or command, promises or threatenings, rewards or punishments, counsels or warnings. The essential qualities of a moral Agent are in God, in the greatest possible perfection; such as understanding to perceive the difference between moral good and evil; a capacity of discerning that moral worthiness and demerit, by which some things are praiseworthy, others deserving of blame and punishment; and also a capacity of choice, and choice guided by understanding, and a power of acting according to his choice or pleasure, and being capable of doing those things which are in the highest sense praiseworthy. And herein does very much consist that image of God wherein he made man, (which we read of, Gen. 1:26, 27, and chap. 9:6.) by which God distinguished man from the beasts, viz. in those faculties and principles of nature, whereby He is capable of moral Agency. Herein very much consists the natural image of God; whereas the spiritual and moral image, wherein man was made at first, consisted in that moral excellency with which he was endowed. J Edwards ,Freedom of the Will


----------



## mybigGod

II. This notion of Adam being created without a principle of holiness in his heart, taken with the rest of Dr. T."˜s scheme, is inconsistent with what the history in the beginning of Genesis leads us to suppose of the great favours and smiles of Heaven, which Adam enjoyed while he remained in innocency. The Mosaic account suggests to us, that till Adam sinned, he was in happy circumstances, surrounded with testimonies and fruits of God´s favour. This is implicitly owned by Dr. T. when he says, (p. 252.) "œThat in the dispensation our first parents were under before the fall, they were placed in a condition proper to engage their gratitude, love, and obedience." But it will follow, on our author´s principles, that Adam, while in innocency, was placed in far worse circumstances, than he was in after his disobedience, and infinitely worse than his posterity are in; under unspeakably greater disadvantages for avoiding sin, and the performance of duty. For by this doctrine, Adam´s posterity come into the world with their hearts as free from any propensity to sin as he, and he was made as destitute of any propensity to righteousness as they: and yet God, in favour to them, does great things to restrain them from sin, and excite them to virtue, which he never did for Adam in innocency, but laid him, in the highest degree, under contrary disadvantages. God, as an instance of his great favour, and fatherly love to man, since the fall, has denied him the ease and pleasures of paradise, which gratified and allured his senses, and bodily appetites; that he might diminish his temptations to sin. And as a still greater means to restrain from sin, and promote virtue, has subjected him to labour, toil, and sorrow in the world: and not only so, but as a means to promote his spiritual and eternal good far beyond this, has doomed him to death. When all this was found insufficient, he, in further prosecution of the designs of his love, shortened men´s lives exceedingly, made them twelve or thirteen times shorter than in the first ages. And yet this, with all the innumerable calamities which God, in great favour to mankind, has brought on the world"”whereby their temptations are so vastly cut short, and the inducements to virtue heaped one upon another to so great a degree"”have proved insufficient, now for so many thousand years together, to restrain from wickedness in any considerable degree; while innocent human nature, all along, comes into the world with the same purity and harmless dispositions that our first parents had in paradise. What vast disadvantages indeed then must Adam and Eve be in, who had no more in their nature to keep them from sin, or incline them to virtue, than their posterity, and yet were without all those additional and extraordinary means! They were not only without such exceeding great means as we now have, when our lives are made so very short, but had vastly less advantages than their antediluvian posterity, who to prevent their being wicked, and to make them good, had so much labour and toil, sweat and sorrow, briers and thorns, with a body gradually decaying and returning to the dust. Our first parents had the extreme disadvantage of being placed amongst many and exceeding great temptations"”not only without toil or sorrow, pain or disease, to humble and mortify them, and a sentence of death to wean them from the world, but"”in the midst of the most exquisite and alluring sensitive delights; the reverse in every respect, and the highest degree, of that most gracious state of requisite means, and great advantages, which mankind now enjoy! If mankind now, under these vast restraints, and great advantages, are not restrained from general, and as it were universal wickedness, how could it be expected that Adam and Eve, created with no better hearts than men bring into the world now, and destitute of all these advantages, and in the midst of all contrary disadvantages, should escape it?J Edwards vol.1 pg 179


----------

