# Question about God's Ordination of Adam's Fall



## cih1355 (Apr 26, 2010)

I have heard some people say that if God ordained that Adam would fall into sin, then Adam did not have the ability to avoid sin. How would you respond to this?


----------



## dudley (Apr 26, 2010)

I believe he gave Adam and through Adam and Eve; he gave man the power to choose between good and evil, he ordained man with free will. Man can make choices as did Adam.


----------



## Herald (Apr 26, 2010)

Curt, Adam did have the ability to avoid (not) sin. Adam was _posse peccare_ and _posse non peccare _ (able to sin and able not to sin). After the fall Adam became _non posse non peccare_ (not able not to sin). But the premise of your question is that God ordained for Adam to sin. This is not consistent with Reformed teaching. God is not the author of sin, nor does He cause or tempt anyone to sin (Jas. 1:13; 1 Joh. 1:5). The 1689 LBC states:



> *1689 LBC 3.1* God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; *yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein*; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.



In His omniscience God knew that Adam would sin; but knowing and causing are two different things. God is the not the first cause of sin, although He makes use of second causes (the willful act of sinning on the part of the sinner) for His purpose.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 26, 2010)

The argument confuses knowing with direct causation as Bill notes above.

An example:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
_If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning._ (*Incorrect*)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
_Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning_. (*Correct*)

In other words, the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.

AMR


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2010)

Herald said:


> Curt, Adam did have the ability to avoid (not) sin. Adam was _posse peccare_ and _posse non peccare _ (able to sin and able not to sin). After the fall Adam became _non posse non peccare_ (not able not to sin). But the premise of your question is that God ordained for Adam to sin. This is not consistent with Reformed teaching. God is not the author of sin, nor does He cause or tempt anyone to sin (Jas. 1:13; 1 Joh. 1:5). The 1689 LBC states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Is this talking out of both sides of ones mouth?

"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, *all things*, whatsoever comes to pass" vs. "But the premise of your question is that God ordained for Adam to sin".

Are you saying God did not ordain Adam to sin?

Personally I have no problem with God ordaining Adam to sin for His glory. I also would say God did not force Adam to sin. Ordain yes, force no. No doubt God allowed it to happen by what means? Maybe by removing an amount of grace?

St. Augustine touched on this as Privatio Boni.


----------



## Herald (Apr 26, 2010)

earl40 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Curt, Adam did have the ability to avoid (not) sin. Adam was _posse peccare_ and _posse non peccare _ (able to sin and able not to sin). After the fall Adam became _non posse non peccare_ (not able not to sin). But the premise of your question is that God ordained for Adam to sin. This is not consistent with Reformed teaching. God is not the author of sin, nor does He cause or tempt anyone to sin (Jas. 1:13; 1 Joh. 1:5). The 1689 LBC states:
> ...



Earl,

Why did you stop in your quote? God does call all things to come to pass, "yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein." Look at Romans 6.



> Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?



If you are suggesting that God caused Adam to sin, thereby being responsible for sin as a first cause, then God would be creating evil in order to do good. This is dualism. God certainly _uses _evil for good, but He does not create evil. There is a difference. If God did create evil, or in your hypothesis cause Adam to sin, then what sort of example is that for us? How can God make such a moral statement such as Romans 6:1-2? I suggest you tread lightly on this issue. You claim to subscribe to the same confession that I do, yet you are departing from it in a serious way.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Apr 26, 2010)

It seems that with this issue it becomes very easy to fall into a molinistic mindset. Would it be unorthodox to say that God created Adam in such a way as to fall? By this I mean that God, knowing all things, knew that Adam (with all of his own personal characteristics and personality traits) would in fact fall and lead creation into its state of sin and death. I can't seem to separate God's foreknowledge from God's foreordination.


----------



## MRC (Apr 26, 2010)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.



I must admit I struggle to understand this a bit. What gives said actions certainty? Does God have to be the _author_ of sin for Him to _purpose_ Adam to sin? If we think of Adam having failed a probationary period and sinned, that act was ultimately purposed by God for His redemptive plan (otherwise I cannot see how we maintain God's soverignty) but God did not author Adam to sin, Adam did. Does this work?

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------




MLCOPE2 said:


> I can't seem to separate God's foreknowledge from God's foreordination.


 
Me too!


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2010)

Herald said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...



Just to be clear....Are you saying God did not ordain Adam to sin?


----------



## Hilasmos (Apr 26, 2010)

John Fram: _DKG_



> 2) Does God Cause Sin?
> Causes is another term which has led to much wrestling by theologians. . . . Reformed writers have . . . denied that God is the cause of sin. Calvin teaches, “For the proper and genuine cause of sin is not God’s hidden counsel but the evident will of man,”1 though in context he also states that Adam’s Fall was “not without God’s knowledge and ordination.”2 Some other examples:
> 
> See that you make not God the author of sin, by charging his sacred decree with men’s miscarriages, as if that were the cause or occasion of them; which we are sure that it is not, nor can be, any more than the sun can be the cause of darkness.3
> ...


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Apr 26, 2010)

Okay. Now im confused as well. Maybe using the word "cause" in this way is the problem: God "caused" Adam to sin. I dont think theres anything wrong with that, always when we realize that Adam was NOT forced to sin. He wasnt saying " I want to be good, I want to be good". He wanted to.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2010)

Edwards answers, "If by 'the author of sin,' be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin." But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

God is, Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."

He uses the analogy of the way the sun brings about light and warmth by its essential nature, but brings about dark and cold by dropping below the horizon. "If the sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness," he says, "it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun." In other words, "sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence." 

Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2010)

Hilasmos said:


> John Fram: _DKG_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*But note above that although Calvin rejects cause he affirms ordination.*

I like.

Bill?


----------



## Herald (Apr 26, 2010)

earl40 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



If by ordain you mean that God included the sin of Adam, and the need to atone for his sin as part of His redemptive plan, then yes, God ordained it. If by ordain you mean that God _caused _Adam to sin, thereby violating His own nature (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, 7:26; Jas. 1:13; 1 Joh. 3:5), that is something I do not agree with, nor do I believe scripture supports that view.


----------



## KMK (Apr 26, 2010)

Some use the fact that God's decree includes the sin of Adam to lay at least some of the blame of sin on God. This is not so. Adam was free to sin or not to sin and the blame for sin lies at the feet of Adam. (If not Satan secondarily) The same God who decreed Adam's sin also decreed Adam be created in perfect righteousness, holiness and knowledge. God decreed to enter into a covenant with Adam and gave him a covenant sign (trees of life and knowledge) to remind him of his duty. God decreed to give Adam his law. God decreed to give Adam a conscience. God decreed to give Adam the testimony of his creation and a help-meet. God decreed to give Adam the Sabbath and face-to-face fellowship with Himself. God decreed to plant Adam into an undefiled world. In other words, God decreed many blessings for Adam to help him _not_ sin. How can God be blamed?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2010)

Herald said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...


 
I agree, The Lord did not cause Adam to sin. I simply was just reacting to what you wrote "But the premise of your question is that God ordained for Adam to sin." As Piper pointed out the words "ordain" and "cause" are not the same.


----------



## Herald (Apr 26, 2010)

earl40 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Earl, I agree. We need to define the terms or, like I did, we can jump to conclusions.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2010)

This makes me wonder if something that is created by God is indeed good, such as Adam, can that thing still retain any goodness without God sustaining grace. Thus the thought of God withholding grace towards Adam allowing him to sin.

God does not cause Adam to sin here, but allows Adam to commit sin and fall because The Lord ordains evil to come into this world by His permissive will for His glory. Thus Augustine's thought of absence of light results in darkness as absence of grace results in sin.

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------




Herald said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...



Ain't that the truth. I have done this all too many times.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 26, 2010)

God ordains that _we_ sin, and yet we do so freely and responsibly.

If you can't understand how God's total sovereignty and Man's responsibility interact, don't worry. 

Who said that we should be able to understand everything?


----------



## SoliDeoGloria (Apr 26, 2010)

I'm pretty sure Richard has nailed this square on the head.

I don't remember the Latin words for it, for I don't really know much to anything about Latin (save _quid pro quo_ and _et cetera_ ), but it would seem that we must argue for God's complete sovereignty and mans complete fault in it. The Latin words are essentially that man and God by some miracle cooperate in the universe. As the authors of Scripture are clear that man is fully responsible for the fall and God is fully sovereign. The only answer I can give in relation to the question is that God ordained that man may sin, in accordance to His sovereignty, and man willingly chose to commit that act. Essentially, we freely choose to do what God ordains. *shrug*

But I think a very important lens and scope we must never forget is that God has ordained sin to exist that we might know the immeasurable, pleasure, and infinite riches of His glory forever and ever. It is only because of this momentary pain and suffering that we may post-resurrection infinitely enjoy the infinitely divine, loving, pleasurable, delightful, good, and satisfying Being appreciating and understanding His goodness and glory.

By no means am I supporting a Molinistic (which is pointless) approach, just to clarify. There is one universe and we live in the best of all of them for God would not settle for anything less than His supreme glory being known and magnified in the best of all possible ways.


----------



## MW (Apr 26, 2010)

God was pleased to permit the fall, WCF 6:1. In this one statement we have all that is necessary to know about the will of God in relation to the fall of man. There is positive decree and binding sovereignty of the fall as a natural action -- pleased. There is removal from and disapproval of the fall as a moral action -- permit. Shifting the lines of demarcation or prying beyond the knowable only serves to complicate the subject.


----------



## cih1355 (Apr 27, 2010)

Is there anything that guaranteed that Adam would sin? Was he able to choose otherwise?


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 27, 2010)

cih1355 said:


> Is there anything that guaranteed that Adam would sin? Was he able to choose otherwise?



Yes. Yes. God is not the author of sin, yet works all things after the counsel of his will. This is not inherently more difficult than the trinity, hypostatic union, etc. There are some things our finite minds cannot grasp. As Rev. Winzer pointed out, we should beware of "prying beyond the knowable", and simply accept the seemingly paradoxical teaching of scripture by faith.


----------



## Hilasmos (Apr 27, 2010)

earl40 said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> > John Fram: _DKG_
> ...


 
Yes. Yet, Frame's larger point, even beyond the section that is quoted above, is that using such terms as "cause" or "author" may not necessarily be wrong since they do not have to denote blame (as Calvin understands and uses the term). Not sure if I would say that we should engage in that type of terminology, as it would bring unnecessary confusion since this exact terminology is rejected confessionally. That being said, cause does not always denote blame, therefore there may be a lot of overlap between the terms cause and ordain.


----------



## MW (Apr 27, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> As Rev. Winzer pointed out, we should beware of "prying beyond the knowable", and simply accept the seemingly paradoxical teaching of scripture by faith.


 
I don't like the idea of having "paradoxical" connected with my name, especially given my belief that revelation possesses the attributes of divine truth, WCF 1:5. To help clarify, I would point out that I provided categorical differences between the pleasure and permission of God when I used the terms "natural" and "moral." There is no paradox once evenly distributed categories have been recognised.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 27, 2010)

You'll notice the adverb "seemingly" before the word paradoxical. No offense intended.


----------



## MW (Apr 27, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> You'll notice the adverb "seemingly" before the word paradoxical. No offense intended.


 
No problem; I was just clarifying for those who might have received a wrong impression. Blessings!


----------



## cih1355 (Apr 28, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there anything that guaranteed that Adam would sin? Was he able to choose otherwise?
> ...


 
If Adam was guaranteed to sin, how was he able to choose otherwise?


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 28, 2010)

If _we_ are "guaranteed to sin" how can _we _choose otherwise?

God is in control and is able to sovereignly ordain our free and responsible actions. If God wasn't in total control, our actions would be determined, without our free responsibility, to some extent by impersonal fate/chance. 

But because God is in total control, impersonal fate/chance don't exist and can't exert any influence on our free agency.

If you ask how can God do this, I don't know. But how can we say that Someone who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient can't do it? Is anything too hard for the LORD?

We may as well ask, How did God create out of nothing? or, How did Jesus turn the water into wine?


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 28, 2010)

By asking this question, you indicate that you did not read the remainder of the post, only the "Yes. Yes." part. 
The scriptures are clear that God works all things after the counsel of his will. The scriptures are also clear that Adam was no mere puppet. God created man free and innocent. He could sin or not sin. That is, he had the power of alternative choice. So, he was ABLE to choose otherwise. And yet, God decreed the fall. That guaranteed that the fall would occur -- and yet it in no way impinged upon the freedom of Adam's choice. The scriptures are also very clear that God is not the author of sin. I don't believe it is within the power of the finite mind to grasp this fully. Neither, however, is it within the power of the finite mind to grasp how the infinite Son of God could become 100% man while being 100% God. That's okay. I don't have to understand in order to believe. To ask me "how was he able to choose otherwise?" is to ask for more than a finite man can be expected to give.



cih1355 said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> > cih1355 said:
> ...


----------

