# Could Adam have sinned in another way?



## Peairtach (Nov 5, 2015)

We know that by nature Adam was sinless, yet, I presume (?), capable of falling into sin for the first time in any number of ways.

Did God's entering into the Covenant of Works with Adam, mean that for the period of the probation, Adam could (or would?) only fall into sin for the first time by means of eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or could he have fallen into his first sin in any number of ways?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 5, 2015)

As fathers of the church have put it from quite early (think Irenaeus, or Athanasius in _The Incarnation_), "God gave Adam but a single prohibition." Adam was made upright, having no sin in his nature. Thus he must be turned from such to engage in sin, which the devil enticed him to do in eating the forbidden fruit. 

We have no warrant to think that Adam could have sinned in any other way than by yielding to the temptation from Satan to do so. This was sin for him in the Garden. What other sin might one imagine? Careful and think this through before answering. Remember that Adam had a nature untainted by sin and full ability to obey God in all things, to keep the law entirely. And this he did until he yielded to the Satanic suggestion. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW (Nov 5, 2015)

Well noted by Prof. Strange. Also, he sinned in every way by sinning in this way.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 6, 2015)

I recall Thomas Watson noting that the positive nature of the commandment made it an especially suitable choice for temptation by the serpent.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 6, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Remember that Adam had a nature untainted by sin and full ability to obey God in all things, to keep the law entirely. And this he did until he yielded to the Satanic suggestion.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Adam was created with the full ability to sin also. If he obeyed, the ability to sin, would have been put away like ours in Glory. Seems to me God wanted to show there is a higher purpose in created life other than eating and drinking which in of themselves are not sinful.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 6, 2015)

Earl:

Yes, of course, Adam was able to sin and able not to sin, but he did not have a sin nature. This is quite important: His nature was not neutral. There was nothing in his nature that in any way prompted him to sin; rather, his nature was righteous and he walked in righteous. He was not yet glorified, however: he had the capability of sinning (and did), but we must not be mistaken about what this meant for him. 

It did not mean that he was confronted with all sorts of temptations to sin or situations in which he had to choose not to sin before his encounter with the devil: he walked in righteousness, according to his nature, until he was confronted with Satan's temptation and succumbed. I strongly agree with Rev. Winzer as well that all sin was comprehended in this sin, i.e., that he sinned in every way by sinning in this way. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 6, 2015)

So is sin apart from the knowledge of good and evil still sin? It seems to me that it is. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. If not, we would have to think Adam being created in the image of God would be called innocent even if he murdered Eve. So I guess the question is, could Adam and Eve acted in any way out of the alignment of perfect holiness? If we say yes, then this it seems would be sin even if there was not a knowledge of it being right or wrong. 

Unless of course, this actually were true, that without a knowledge of good and evil, nothing would be sin because we would basically be functioning as creatures with no rationality or reasoning of morals. 

But could they have actually sinned? I'm not sure. I think that is a bit too philosophical to pinpoint.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 6, 2015)

Brothers:

Please read carefully what was posted. It is not speculative to say that Adam had an upright nature and could not, consistent with that, have murdered Eve. He had no desire or "reason" to do such. He did not sin. She did not sin. Murder would never even enter the picture. It is all those who are departing from the text of Scripture and its plain implications who are being "philosophical" rather than "theological" (using those terms as I understand them being used in this discussion). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 6, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> As fathers of the church have put it from quite early (think Irenaeus, or Athanasius in _The Incarnation_), "God gave Adam but a single prohibition." Adam was made upright, having no sin in his nature. Thus he must be turned from such to engage in sin, which the devil enticed him to do in eating the forbidden fruit.
> 
> We have no warrant to think that Adam could have sinned in any other way than by yielding to the temptation from Satan to do so. This was sin for him in the Garden. What other sin might one imagine? Careful and think this through before answering. Remember that Adam had a nature untainted by sin and full ability to obey God in all things, to keep the law entirely. And this he did until he yielded to the Satanic suggestion.
> 
> ...



Yes. This was the only means by which he was to lose his original righteousness, and become originally polluted and guilty. God made it "easy" for Man in the CoW.

*Earl*


> Seems to me God wanted to show there is a higher purpose in created life other than eating and drinking which in of themselves are not sinful.



When you look at eating and drinking in life and in Scripture, its purposes, given to it by God, make the form of the probationary test most appropriate.

(a) Eating is given for promoting strength and life. But Adam by his sin ate spiritual death unto himself and his children.

(b) Eating is given for pleasure, But Adam by his sin took pleasure in iniquity.

(c) Eating is given for fellowship. But Adam by his sin had fellowship with iniquity and the Serpent.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 6, 2015)

I think you are right, brother Alan. Your stance seems pretty convincing to me. It seems to be the most Biblically sound. Thank you very much for sharing.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 10, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> As fathers of the church have put it from quite early (think Irenaeus, or Athanasius in _The Incarnation_), "God gave Adam but a single prohibition." Adam was made upright, having no sin in his nature. Thus he must be turned from such to engage in sin, which the devil enticed him to do in eating the forbidden fruit.
> 
> We have no warrant to think that Adam could have sinned in any other way than by yielding to the temptation from Satan to do so. This was sin for him in the Garden. What other sin might one imagine? Careful and think this through before answering. Remember that Adam had a nature untainted by sin and full ability to obey God in all things, to keep the law entirely. And this he did until he yielded to the Satanic suggestion.
> 
> ...



I know this is maybe going beyond what is revealed, Alan, but without the condescension of God entering into the Covenant of Works with Man, could Adam have first sinned in another way?


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> I know this is maybe going beyond what is revealed, Alan, but without the condescension of God entering into the Covenant of Works with Man, could Adam have first sinned in another way?



Had he sinned in another way, could he have been redeemed? Perhaps we should consider 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.

Redemption came by the second Adam. Super-added obligation and representation were integral to the plan of salvation. Hence the importance of the two-Adam antithetical parallel to the biblical theology of restoration.

Without the covenant of works there would appear be no special providential order upon which to establish the covenant of grace in history.


----------

