# Concerning Adam's Imputation to All Men



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

OK, if a person asks you,

You say I am going to hell because I am a sinner

And for my sins. 

But I say my sins are a result of my sin nature. I now can do nothing but sin.

I never got a chance to start out innocent like Adam. 

How is God fair and just in Making Adam My representative without me having a say in it or 
without me ever having that chance? I am born a sinner human not an innocent. 
I never had a chance? How can I be responsible for my sins, when He made me have Adam's fallen nature?

How can we best answer this and explain this issue of God being fair or just in imputing Adam's sin to him and not everyone getting their own chance. 
They feel they are being punished for something they did not do.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 20, 2009)

First, Paul answers best by charging the asker of this question with audacity: "Who are you to question God?"

Second, we do see an amount of graciousness in Adam being "allowed" to be our head; 1.) If Adam fell, none of us would have done any differently; 2.) Special favors and advantages were given to Adam to keep him in obedience for the rest of us, which favors and privileges are not common to all men.

Third, is it not most just for the Creator to leave the head of his creation responsible for his people?


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Apr 20, 2009)

How is God fair or just in making Christ my rep?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> First, Paul answers best by charging the asker of this question with audacity: "Who are you to question God?"
> 
> Second, we do see an amount of graciousness in Adam being "allowed" to be our head; 1.) If Adam fell, none of us would have done any differently; 2.) Special favors and advantages were given to Adam to keep him in obedience for the rest of us, which favors and privileges are not common to all men.
> 
> Third, is it not most just for the Creator to leave the head of his creation responsible for his people?



How do I know Adam did as good as I would have?
What special favors?

3rd, no I do not see why it is just for God to leave the 1st man as my rep. any more than the 3rd or all of us have our own chance. 

If God was fair wouldn't He have to give me a fair chance, to sin or not from an innocent nature like Adam had?


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 20, 2009)

Adam and Eve were created good and innocent of sin. They were not created perfect. Had they been created perfect they would have not sinned. Therefore, you would have been in the same situation as they were in...good and without sin yet not perfect and still needing that one Perfect One. You're chances there in the garden wouldn't have been any better than theirs and therefore they are your representative of what you would have done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> If God was fair wouldn't He...



Don, this statement makes me have to ask: are you raising these questions as honest inquiry for yourself, or are you playing Devil's advocate? Please tell.

*Edit*
I only ask because if Devil's Advocate, I have other things I need to be doing; if sincere, I would gladly take the time. Although, it seems many others are answering, so you're set either way!


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Adam and Eve were created good and innocent of sin. They were not created perfect. Had they been created perfect they would have not sinned. Therefore, you would have been in the same situation as they were in...good and without sin yet not perfect and still needing that one Perfect One. You're chances there in the garden wouldn't have been any better than theirs and therefore they are your representative of what you would have done.



A couple quibbles...

1) Eve is not a covenant head of humanity. Adam was.

2) The "therefore" oughtn't be there ... since Adam's covenant headship isn't dependent upon our chances in the garden. He is covenant head because God so ordained him to be. 

That being quibbled, you're right. Adam did just what we'd have done (though again that has no bearing on his being our head) and the choice to sin was one made by an innocent creature whose inclination was in fact good (yet he chose to sin, which was in his power to do).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 20, 2009)

Is God unjust? That seems to be the implication.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 20, 2009)

Don,

Assuming you are sincerely asking this for yourself, I would think it best to consider the _nature_ of Adam's representation; we, being created like Adam, are truly represented by him (not just federally): that is, he represents what humanity does/would do apart from the preventing grace of God; just as we, being created in Christ (when we will be fully glorified) are represented more than just federally by Christ -- we will at the day be _not able to sin_, even as Christ.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Apr 20, 2009)

What creed did you say accepted when you joined this board? I think you can not really be reformed and still ask questions like this.

What creed or confession do you accept?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 20, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> What creed did you say accepted when you joined this board? I think you can not really be reformed and still ask questions like this.
> 
> What creed or confession do you accept?



I am not sure that the question is a bad question. It is a good question. I am not so sure that any human is above being deceived or corrupted in his will as he stands alone. And that is the assumption that a man can and would do better than Adam the first man. That just seems a bit prideful.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 20, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > Adam and Eve were created good and innocent of sin. They were not created perfect. Had they been created perfect they would have not sinned. Therefore, you would have been in the same situation as they were in...good and without sin yet not perfect and still needing that one Perfect One. You're chances there in the garden wouldn't have been any better than theirs and therefore they are your representative of what you would have done.
> ...



Sorry I'm just use to writing Adam and Eve...I didn't mean to make it sound like Eve was the covenant head. I was just trying to say that Peacemaker wouldn't have done any better that's why I used the word "chances". None of us should be crying about the fact that we didn't get our "Garden of Eden" chance and that it's unfair that we are born depraved. All of us would have fallen had we been Adam and Eve.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Skyler (Apr 20, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> What creed did you say accepted when you joined this board? I think you can not really be reformed and still ask questions like this.
> 
> What creed or confession do you accept?



Don's profile indicates that he holds to the Westminster Standards. I assume that Don is passing on questions to us that he has run across when talking with non-Calvinists.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

sjonee said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > sjonee said:
> ...



Understood, Sarah. I was just doing my Adminstrative duty, and making clear the confessional teaching  The "when Adam and Eve sinned" language is pervasive, even in confessional churches, wherein Eve sort of gets this 'second covenant headship' status by default. Wasn't calling you on the carpet or anything


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

I am posing a question professing Christians ask when presented with doctrines of total depravity, Man's will, ability to sin or seek God, etc. 

And non-Christians ask them also when you present these aspects of the gospel. 

I have my own answers, but this came up on another thread and I was asked to start a new one to delve into it. 

I want to know how others answer this when it comes up.


----------



## Michael Doyle (Apr 20, 2009)

I believe Don is playing advocate, dont go chopping heads until he has been given the freedom to respond. Reading his previous posts give credibility to this...I least I hope.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

Skyler said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> > What creed did you say accepted when you joined this board? I think you can not really be reformed and still ask questions like this.
> ...



It would help if he were much more clear about this. There's little more prone to misunderstanding than hypotheticals that are posted as if they were real questions.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> I am posing a question professing Christians ask when presented with doctrines of total depravity, Mans will, ability to sin or seek God, etc.
> 
> And non-Christians ask them also when you rpesnet these aspects of the gospel.
> 
> ...



Then, please, Don... ask such questions clearly so that people know they are not your questions in fact, but are those people ask. Please be clear about why you are posting what you're posting.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Sorry, I thot you guys knew I didn't think you were telling me I was going to hell.

Will try to mention it is not hypothetical but for what purpose I am asking.


----------



## blakerussell (Apr 20, 2009)

I'm thankful for this thread because I've been wrestling with some of the same questions. (Honestly wrestling.) I've been praying that God melt my heart about this issue and that I'd see His goodness and justice in it (which has been extremely difficult apart from His hand).

Thank you Paul for your post! It has been most helpful to see that if I were in the garden without sin nature, I would've done the same because God ordained it be so! I would've fallen apart from grace, just as Adam did. 

God is infallible, and His decision to make Adam our representative head was an infallible one. He was _the perfect representative_ for the human race. This is why I sinned in adam, for I am part of the human race. He is my representative. 

I am guilty because God imputes Adam's sin to me.
Is it safe to also say, that I'm guilty, because in Adam's place apart from God's grace, I also would've sinned? I hope so. The thought gives me much comfort and peace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 20, 2009)

I would be interested in hearing your answer to the question Don.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

blakerussell said:


> I'm thankful for this thread because I've been wrestling with some of the same questions. (Honestly wrestling.) I've been praying that God melt my heart about this issue and that I'd see His goodness and justice in it (which has been extremely difficult apart from His hand).
> 
> Thank you Paul for your post! It has been most helpful to see that if I were in the garden without sin nature, I would've done the same because God ordained it be so! I would've fallen apart from grace, just as Adam did.
> 
> ...



Well, yes and no. Surely you would have sinned if you were in Adam's place. However, that is in no sense a reason for you to be declared guilty. Your'e guilty because you are in fact guilty. If it gives you comfort and peace to know that you would surely have sinned - then that's great - the Word does that. Just don't go beyond that and argue that you are in fact guilty because of that hypothetical...

One of the ways the principle of covenant headship is helpful, actually is that it helps us make sense of our union with Christ. We're usually quite willing to accept the covenant headship of Christ, and accept his benefits passed to his covenant progeny... we should be, as Josh has written, equally willing to accept the covenant headship of Adam. This is the main point of Romans 5:12-21 where Paul draws this exact comparison. We are united under our covenant head Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us - just as the guilt of Adam is imputed to us as his covenant progeny. 

Let me put it in a different light. You were conceived guilty - as soon as there was a "you", you were guilty because the cells from which you first were conceived were guilty cells - unclean cells. There is no way for the first "you" cell (or any subsequent cells which grew from that first "you" cell) to be made or declared clean without an act of God.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would be interested in hearing your answer to the question Don.



which one ? 
-------------------
And Blake something else you may find helpful to consider is what Josh said. 

Had it not be just for God to make Adam our 1st head, then He could not have been as just to make Christ our 2nd head. 

So even if it does not sit well with our human fleshly sense of justice for Adam to be our head, Praise God it was because as you are sure, had you had a chance, you would no doubt have eventually sinned too and then you would be going to hell with no hope. 

So praise God for his sense of Justice which exceeds our understanding. 

Also not Rom 9 

Pauls says God made us and could do anything with us. We never deserved to have a chance anyway. 
Who says it is just for us to have a chance?

We are a creature. God made us for His purpose. 
We have no right to reply or question Him


----------



## blakerussell (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I would be interested in hearing your answer to the question Don.
> ...



Strangely enough, (and I'm guessing it be only by God's grace) these truths and considerations give me comfort. I only hope it is not fleeting. I've wrestled with this very thing (for the past month in fact) and it has been a thorn in my side. So much so, that I was concerned I had never even truly come to Christ because I've had so much trouble with the following doctrine. 

God is gracious!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 20, 2009)

Just thought we ought to have this passage in the conversation.



> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
> (Rom 5:12)
> 
> (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
> ...


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Am man hearing a sermon on this commented, I didn't like the pastor saying, by one man, instead of saying by one act.

I didn't get what his problem was?


----------



## blakerussell (Apr 20, 2009)

How does the transmission of guilt happen? God infallibly made it so that Adam was humanity's representative in the garden. When He fell, all of his posterity were made sinners... or made guilty. 

Does this transmission happen by imputation? Did God righteously judge all of humanity as guilty with Adam's sin?

I'm just trying to get a better grasp on this subject. I've not gone deep into it until recently.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 20, 2009)

blakerussell said:


> How does the transmission of guilt happen? God infallibly made it so that Adam was humanity's representative in the garden. When He fell, all of his posterity were made sinners... or made guilty.
> 
> Does this transmission happen by imputation? Did God righteously judge all of humanity as guilty with Adam's sin?
> 
> I'm just trying to get a better grasp on this subject. I've not gone deep into it until recently.



Well, Jesus evidently wasn't judged as guilty with Adam's sin. I think there has been some suggestion in the history of the church that original sin is passed on by the father. This would explain why Jesus--whose Father was divine and sinless--did not have original sin.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

blakerussell said:


> How does the transmission of guilt happen? God infallibly made it so that Adam was humanity's representative in the garden. When He fell, all of his posterity were made sinners... or made guilty.
> 
> Does this transmission happen by imputation? Did God righteously judge all of humanity as guilty with Adam's sin?
> 
> I'm just trying to get a better grasp on this subject. I've not gone deep into it until recently.



Hi Blake -

If you have access to either Hodge's systematic theology, or Robert Reymond's newer one, I believe both deal with the various options on transmission. I or someone else can summarise the discussion you'd find there, if you don't have access to them. 

Todd


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

There is a good short book called the Imputation of Adam's sin, a little hard to read but not bad if you want to get clear on this subject. 

Imputation of Adams Sin price comparison


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> There is a good short book called the Imputation of Adam's sin, a little hard to read but not bad if you want to get clear on this subject.
> 
> Imputation of Adams Sin price comparison



Yes, this is a VERY nice, and concise treatment by John Murray.


----------



## blakerussell (Apr 20, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> blakerussell said:
> 
> 
> > How does the transmission of guilt happen? God infallibly made it so that Adam was humanity's representative in the garden. When He fell, all of his posterity were made sinners... or made guilty.
> ...





PeaceMaker said:


> There is a good short book called the Imputation of Adam's sin, a little hard to read but not bad if you want to get clear on this subject.
> 
> Imputation of Adams Sin price comparison




I do have Reymonds Sys theo actually, but I'm not sure if it's the newer one. It happens to be the second edition. Berkhoff's is the only other full systematic I own.

Also, I've looked into getting that book, but I hear it's quite the difficult read. Seeing as how I don't know any latin either, I'm sure I'd have a real fun time with that one!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 20, 2009)

Westminster Confession of Faith



> Chapter 6:
> Of the Fall of Man,
> of Sin, and
> of the Punishment Thereof
> ...



London Baptist Confession of Faith chapter 6



> Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof
> 
> 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
> ( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 )
> ...



Westminster Catechism



> Q. 21. Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first created him?
> 
> A. Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.[88]
> 
> ...


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

In a simplistic sense, It is like a legal or accounting term. Like Propitiation. Debt paid, done deal. No bal owing. 

So God imputed on our account sin. 
This may be separate than our fallen nature which we got too. 
So whether separate or one is an accounting of the fallen nature in us, we are legally counted sinful. 
So in the same way, though we are not physical descendants og Christ, his life and suffering were accounted to our account. 

The Cov of Works
Says God gave Adam a test that would determine the outcome for the whole race. 
So when he failed it is placed on all of us. 

I think if this is our minimal understanding it is adequate. 

Now the sin nature affects us such that all we do is unacceptable by God, and is of no spiritual good, it is tainted with out self and sin. It is so damaging we won't seek God, we are always selfish to some extent even when we do outward kindness. It was not of pure motives only for god so it is sin. 

So we are guilty for both our actual sins and our sin by nature. 

When Adam fell we were all put out of the Garden and could not go back in. We must go to Christ to have imputed righteousness out on our account and the infinite suffering payment for sin on our account.

Verses in Rom show what the limits of the nature are. We can do no good. We do not seek God. 


We are no longer born neutral humans, we are sinner humans by nature at birth. Just as a bird has the nature of a bird and a fish the nature of a fish, so our will is not totally free, but free within the limits of our nature.

so we do not need to argue the technical whether it was by natural fleshly generation or just legal pronouncement, like it was with Christ. 
Point is it is clear, we have a sin nature, and we sin anyway, and were we Adam, we would have eventually.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

When we start with the assumption we have rights or should have rights, like the right to be treated justly or fairly we may struggle because of our false view of man. 

Rom 9 clearly tells us we have no rights, God can do with what He made as He wishes. 

When we start with a proper view of man, it is all mercy. It is all grace.

Praise God I am able to be included federally with Adam so I can be included federally with Christ. 
This way His righteousness can be applied to me and his payment for sin can be as well. 

Christ is my only hope.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 20, 2009)

_ Adam did just what we'd have done _

I didn't read all the replies. But my pastor preached on this just this past Sunday. He used the illustration of who wants to be a millionaire, and Adam uses his lifeline to poll the audience, and every single person in the audience hollers out "eat the fruit".


----------



## akennethjr (Apr 20, 2009)

In answer to your questions, as I understand that previous to the fall Adam was:
Able not to sin and
Able to sin
This is accepted in Reformed theology. 
There is the fourfold state of man the first before the fall which he had ability to sin or not to sin.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 20, 2009)

lynnie said:


> _ Adam did just what we'd have done _
> 
> I didn't read all the replies. But my pastor preached on this just this past Sunday. He used the illustration of who wants to be a millionaire, and Adam uses his lifeline to poll the audience, and every single person in the audience hollers out "eat the fruit".



I'm not sure how helpful that illustration is - though the point at root is correct. Again, though, the reason we are sinful and that when we are conceived, we are already guilty of Adam's sin, is not tied to the fact that if we were in Adam's place we'd have sinned. That is true but should never be presented as the reason we are sinful in God's eyes prior to our commission of any actual sin.


----------



## White Knight (Apr 23, 2009)

Am I too bold in saying this? Aren't there a lack of scriptures being used in this thread?


----------



## ReformedChapin (Apr 23, 2009)

"Fairness is a relative term"

God can do what he wills and any point in time and he is the reference point to our definition. When adam sinned as head of humanity it was as if we were all there with him sinning that's God's definition and he holds us to responsbible to it.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 28, 2009)

I think if we question God's choice of Adam as our Covenant head and representative, it says more about our prideful attitude in thinking that we can compete with God's wisdom, than it does about God's wisdom.

Are we saying that God was "foolish" in choosing someone who fell? The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of Man.

If we're discussing Adam as our covenant head we're probably in a position where God in His grace and providence has sent the Gospel to us, showing us how foolish and wicked our Covenant head was. Should we compound that foolishness and wickedness by being foolish and wicked in rejecting the message of salvation with prideful "wisdom"?

Adam's Fall was as foolish and wicked in the human realm, as Lucifer's was in the angelic realm. We sometimes forget that because of the nature of the test.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 28, 2009)

White Knight said:


> Am I too bold in saying this? Aren't there a lack of scriptures being used in this thread?



I'm not sure what thread you're reading. There have been a large number of Scriptures referred to explicitly and implicitly in this thread. The chief passage that has been referred to is Romans 5:12-21 - it's been quoted at least twice, once in full, and its teachings have been referred to in many, many posts. There have also been other Scriptures repeatedly mentioned by quotation or actually (as I suppose you would prefer) by chapter and verse reference.


----------



## RTaron (Apr 28, 2009)

Can someone explain Rom. 5:13? (real question, no agenda) 



> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
> 13 *(For until the law sin was in the world:* but sin is not imputed when there is no law.*
> 14 *Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.




what does it mean, sin is not umputed when there is no law? 

Do we need a new thread to deal with this question?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 28, 2009)

RTaron said:


> Can someone explain Rom. 5:13? (real question, no agenda)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



John Gill


> but sin is not imputed when there is no law. This looks like an objection, that if there was no law before Moses' time, then there was no sin, nor could any action of man be known or accounted by them as sinful, or be imputed to them to condemnation; or rather it is a concession, allowing that where there is no law, sin is not imputed; but there was a law before that law of Moses, which law was transgressed, and the sin or transgression of it was imputed to men to condemnation and death, as appears from what follows.



Calvin



> For until the law, etc. This parenthesis anticipates an objection: for as
> there seems to be no transgression with out the law, it might have been
> doubted whether there were before the law any sin: that there was after the
> law admitted of no doubt. The question only refers to the time preceding
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 28, 2009)

The distillation of Gill & Calvin's useful discussions: See Romans 5:14. That explains Romans 5:13. There WAS law prior to Sinai... and that men were subject to death is evidence of the fact of that law's existence and that law's transgression.


----------



## Berit (Apr 28, 2009)

If we are willing to say that we are justified by Christ's imputed righteousness, then there is no problem with being condemned by Adam's imputed sin.

If our justification is dependent on another then why should we quibble about our condemnation being dependent on another.


----------



## Theogenes (Apr 28, 2009)

Adam was created in righteousness and true holiness yet he was mutable. He _could_ change. Only in the glorified state will we be immutable in regards to sin...unable to sin to use Augustine's language.


----------



## RTaron (Apr 28, 2009)

Thanks Martin for the Calvin comment.


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 28, 2009)

It seems to me that Adam was perfectly capable to keep the covenant of works, but he lacked the fullness of power to do so. God did not make man originally to be possessed with the Spirit of God, and so man was weak as being earthly, although good and upright. So, the fall was inevitable, and so it would be with us as well. To presume to be successful if we were in Adam's shoes says that we could be successful without the help of the Spirit of God. Another attempt at man glorying in himself, and presuming upon his own strength. As regenerate beings, we are not restored to the state of Adam, but are raised to a much higher state, in that we have the Spirit of God dwelling within us. And, he is to dwell with us forever, so our guarantee never to fall as Adam did is now sealed as impossible. 

That's how I tend to think of it for now.

Blessings!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 28, 2009)

moral necessity said:


> It seems to me that Adam was perfectly capable to keep the covenant of works, but he lacked the fullness of power to do so. God did not make man originally to be possessed with the Spirit of God, and so man was weak as being earthly, although good and upright. So, the fall was inevitable, and so it would be with us as well. To presume to be successful if we were in Adam's shoes says that we could be successful without the help of the Spirit of God. Another attempt at man glorying in himself, and presuming upon his own strength. As regenerate beings, we are not restored to the state of Adam, but are raised to a much higher state, in that we have the Spirit of God dwelling within us. And, he is to dwell with us forever, so our guarantee never to fall as Adam did is now sealed as impossible.
> 
> That's how I tend to think of it for now.
> 
> Blessings!



I disagree. Adam had full capacity to obey. He wasn't fallen yet. I am not sure what you mean by, "God did not make man originally to be possessed with the Spirit of God, and so man was weak as being earthly, although good and upright."

Where are you coming up with this conclusion and what do you mean by possessed by the Spirit of God? Adam was created alive unto God. He wasn't created dead as in a fallen state. We are dead and that is why mankind needs to be regenerate, or born again.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 29, 2009)

Theogenes said:


> Adam was created in righteousness and true holiness yet he was mutable. He _could_ change. Only in the glorified state will we be immutable in regards to sin...unable to sin to use Augustine's language.



If we are regenerated, we're already in a better position than Adam because we cannot lose our salvation. We are in Christ and He has purchased eternal salvation for us. 

In this sense we are immutable. But none of this should lead us to complacency reagarding sin.


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 29, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that Adam was perfectly capable to keep the covenant of works, but he lacked the fullness of power to do so. God did not make man originally to be possessed with the Spirit of God, and so man was weak as being earthly, although good and upright. So, the fall was inevitable, and so it would be with us as well. To presume to be successful if we were in Adam's shoes says that we could be successful without the help of the Spirit of God. Another attempt at man glorying in himself, and presuming upon his own strength. As regenerate beings, we are not restored to the state of Adam, but are raised to a much higher state, in that we have the Spirit of God dwelling within us. And, he is to dwell with us forever, so our guarantee never to fall as Adam did is now sealed as impossible.
> ...



Randy,

I said that Adam was fully capable of obedience. I was just trying to make a distinction between "capacity" and "inherent weakness" due to his being earthly and not heavenly, natural and not spiritual. I Cor. 15:42-29 is where I think scripture deals with some of this, and I think Owen had something on it that I came across, but I can't remember. It's my understanding that, when we are regenerated, we are not just brought back to the state of Adam, but are entered into a new state that Adam knew nothing of, which involves the indwelling of the Spirit of God. And so, if Adam did not have this advantage, it left him fully capable of obedience, but yet fully earthly and natural, and, in a sense, weak or frail, if that makes any sense. At least, that's how I've understood the subject from what I've read on it. Sorry if my wording threw up a red flag in your eyes. I appreciate your posts, and for probing for more clarity into what I meant. I'll see if I can find where I read of similar thoughts on the subject before.

Blessings and fellowship


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 29, 2009)

Charles,
I am having a hard time with your assumption that the Holy Spirit didn't indwell Adam. Can you give me some biblical reference for this? That sounds a bit out there. I don't think 1 Corinthians 15:41-50 will support your understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. After all it is this body we live in that will be resurrected in. It will be resurrected incorruptable. But that doesn't mean that the Spirit of God doesn't or can't indwell it till it is resurrected. If God indwells us in our fallen estate, I would think he indwelt Adam in his unfallen estate.


----------



## Matthias (Apr 30, 2009)

Berit said:


> If we are willing to say that we are justified by Christ's imputed righteousness, then there is no problem with being condemned by Adam's imputed sin.
> 
> If our justification is dependent on another then why should we quibble about our condemnation being dependent on another.



I agree with your point. It is also interesting to note that those who would quibble about our condemnation being dependent on another, are most often the same who would quibble about our righteousness being imputed freely and without merit. These people have at the center of their worldview themselves. Themselves and their wills are their idols.


----------



## moral necessity (May 11, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Charles,
> I am having a hard time with your assumption that the Holy Spirit didn't indwell Adam. Can you give me some biblical reference for this? That sounds a bit out there. I don't think 1 Corinthians 15:41-50 will support your understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. After all it is this body we live in that will be resurrected in. It will be resurrected incorruptable. But that doesn't mean that the Spirit of God doesn't or can't indwell it till it is resurrected. If God indwells us in our fallen estate, I would think he indwelt Adam in his unfallen estate.



If you have access to Owen's Volume 3, and check out pp. 101-103, he speaks of there being a difference between Adam in his innocency, and regenerate believers. He says, from Col. 1:17, that "the Holy Spirit renews in us the image of God, the original implantation whereof was his peculiar work. And thus Adam may be said to have had the Spirit of God in his innocency. He had him in these peculiar effects of his power and goodness; and he had him according to the tenor of that covenant whereby it was possible that he should utterly lose him, as accordingly it came to pass. He had him not by especial inhabitation, for the whole world was then the temple of God. In the covenant of grace, founded in the person and on the mediation of Christ, it is otherwise. On whomsoever the Spirit of God is bestowed for the renovation of the image of God in him, he abides with him for ever.

I guess I don't really find a particular verse spelling it out exactly, but rather it is a deduction I've made from scriptures when they are put together. It seems impossible to me for Adam to sin if he had a similar indwelling of the Holy Spirit as we do being believers. If he could, then what would prevent us from stumbling again thousands of years later when we're in glory? 

Hope that makes my thoughts a little more clear to you, Randy. Again, thanks for your input, as I appreciate the thoughts you have shared with me.


Here's another quote, but this one is from Dabney's Systematic Theology, pp. 310-312. This is more in response to the OP. "How a holy will could come to have an unholy volition at first, is a most difficult inquiry. And it is much harder as to the first sin of Satan, than of Adam, becaus the angel, hitherto perfect, had no tempter to mislead him, and had not even the bodily appetites for natural good which in Adam were so easily perverted into concupiscence...First: a finite creature can only be indefectible through the perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infinite wisdom and grace, guarding the finite and fallible attention of the soul against sin. This was righteously withheld from Satan and Adam. Second: while righteousness is a positive attribute, incipient sin is a privative trait of human conduct. The mere absence of an element of active regard for God's will, constitutes a disposition or volition of wrong. Now, while the positive requires a positive cause, it is not therefore inferrible that the negative equally demands a positive cause. To make a candle burn, it must be lighted; to make it go out, it need only be let alone...when we assert the mutability of a holy will in a finite creature, we only say that the positive element of righteousness of disposition may, in the shape of defect, admit the negative, not being infinite...to make a candle positively give light, it must be lighted; to cause it to sink into darkness, it is only necessary to let it alone: it's length being limited, it burns out."

Therefore, I see that all humans would have failed just like Adam. The withdrawing of his Spirit of preservation and continuance from man would leave the image of God to fade, being without His positive influence. The candle would soon burn out for any man, as we are finite and mutable. That tends to be how I think of it for now.

Blessings!


----------



## Turtle (May 12, 2009)

RTaron said:


> Can someone explain Rom. 5:13? (real question, no agenda)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"sin is not imputed when there is no law." If you don't have a law to break you can't be held accountable. It sets the proof that sin (thus death) entered the world by one man, Adam. (The author just claimed in v. 12 that "death passed to all, because all sinned.") We have no problem acknowledging that people died from Adam to Moses. But why did they die if they couldn't sin by eating from the tree as Adam, and there was no law for them to break requiring death until Moses? 

Those who lived from Adam to Moses received no law admonishing them that required their death if they broke it, but Adam did receive one (the tree of knowledge of good and evil was available to Adam but was no longer available to those from Adam to Moses). Yet they still died even though there was no new way to impute sin to them because there was no law for them to break, (no new way until Moses). So the only way they could deserve death was by sinning in Adam's sin. Adam's sin was imputed to those who lived from Adam's time to Moses, and by like manner to us also. 

bryan
tampa, fl


----------

