# The Cause for Adam's Fall



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jun 3, 2010)

I have hard time understanding the reformed view of Adam's fall. I believe that God cannot make anything good BY NATURE, that is, when anything created by God is left on itself, it cannot but act contrary to God's ways. I hold this view mainly because I believe God is HOLY, meaning, anything that God claims Himself to be, none else is. If God acts righteously, none else does. If God loves, none else does. If God is merciful, none else is. etc.

Until now, none has been able to make sense of the reformed view of Adam's fall to me. I do have great expectations of the reformed theologians, but as I see it, the holiness of God is at great risk here.

"We were made in God's image." I take this to mean that we were made as mirrors to God's glory, to reflect back the glory of God to Himself.

That God saw all the earth as "very good" before the fall of Adam does not contradict my idea of all the creation being EVIL by nature. What I mean by "evil" is "without God", since there is no good without or outside of God. I would gladly approve of Adam being good by nature, if there were any references in the Bible to God being united with Adam, that is, being ONE with Adam as we are ONE with God through Christ.

Thus, I conclude that Adam's fall was simply a righteous demonstration of God's sovereignty in all things to Adam, and to us also. And the very same explanation I would give to Lucifer's fall, since even the greatest reformed theologians struggle with it. Lucifer fell not because He reached some point of authority that was too close to God's and caused Him to sin, but because God desired to start demonstrating His sovereignty in all things. When I think of it, I would have did the exact same thing, that is, to raise up the highest possible being and then make it fall, to show that without God's grace there is no way to be like God.

So, please, in your best ability, explain Adam's fall from the reformed point of view. Do also criticize my view, if you know any Bible verses that clearly contradict it!


----------



## KMK (Jun 4, 2010)

LBC 4:2 After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; *being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness*; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change.

According to the Reformed confessions, Adam was created in the image of God in true holiness. The fall was not caused by a lack of holiness in Adam.

I suggest diving into this: Westminster Shorter Catechism Project

Study what the Reformed writers had to say about WSC Qs 10,12 and 13. If you still have questions, feel free to ask them. But please don't make unconfessional assertions here on PB.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 4, 2010)

It makes no logical sense to conclude that all that is not God is evil. It makes all of God's creation evil, when He pronounced it "very good."

Your starting point is so far off, that there is no way to even address the (further) flawed conclusions.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jun 4, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> It makes no logical sense to conclude that all that is not God is evil. It makes all of God's creation evil, when He pronounced it "very good."
> 
> Your starting point is so far off, that there is no way to even address the (further) flawed conclusions.



Well, Fred, my point is that God could see all His creation "very good" because there was no sin because God had kept everything, in one way or another, in holiness (just as, I think, He does with any created being in Heaven, who is not fallen like Lucifer and her followers).

---------- Post added at 07:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------




KMK said:


> LBC 4:2 After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; *being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness*; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change.
> 
> According to the Reformed confessions, Adam was created in the image of God in true holiness. The fall was not caused by a lack of holiness in Adam.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks, Ken! I'll look into it.

---------- Post added at 07:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 AM ----------

Colossians 3:10 And have put on *the new man*, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. 

Ephesians 4:24 And that ye put on *the new man*, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

How would you prove that "the new man" refers to the state, in which man was before Adam's fall? Do you know any good commentary on these particular verses?

---------- Post added at 07:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 AM ----------

Q: Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created? 
A: Our first parents, *being left to the freedom of their own will*, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

That's exactly my point! Now how am I contradicting this confession with my own view of man's estate?


----------



## Skyler (Jun 4, 2010)

Samuel, if I could make a friendly observation here:

You seem to have a habit of taking a common, everyday word (such as evil) and giving it a definition different from the way it's usually used. I notice that here, and I've also noticed that in a few of your other posts. That technique has some "shock value", but I don't think it really helps to get your point across, especially in theological contexts where words need to be carefully chosen to avoid confusion.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 4, 2010)

Adam, in his created state, was "able not to sin" just as he was able to sin. He was not bound (by his nature) to sin before the Fall.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jun 4, 2010)

Jonathan Edwards...



> The case with man was plainly this: when God made man at first, he implanted in him two kinds of principles. There was an inferior kind, which may be called natural, being the principles of mere human nature; such as self-love, with those natural appetites and passions, which belong to the nature of man, in which his love to his own liberty, honor and pleasure, were exercised: these when alone, and left to themselves, are what the Scriptures sometimes call flesh. Besides these, there were superior principles, that were spiritual, holy and divine, summarily comprehended in divine love; wherein consisted the spiritual image of God, and man's righteousness and true holiness; which are called in Scripture the divine nature. These principles may, in some sense, be called supernatural, being (however concreated or connate, yet) such as are above those principles that are essentially implied in, or necessarily resulting from, and inseparably connected with, mere human nature; and being such as *immediately depend on man's union and communion with God, or divine communications and influences of God's Spirit*: which though withdrawn, and man's nature forsaken of these principles, human nature would be human nature still; man's nature as such, being entire without these divine principles, which the Scripture sometimes calls spirit, in contradistinction to flesh. *These superior principles were given to possess the throne, and maintain an absolute dominion in the heart: the other, to be wholly subordinate and subservient. *
> 
> And while things continued thus, all things were in excellent order, peace and beautiful harmony, and in their proper and perfect state. *These divine principles thus reigning, were the dignity, life, happiness, and glory of man's nature.* When man sinned, and broke God's covenant, and fell under his curse, these superior principles left his heart: for indeed God then left him; that communion with God, on which these principles depended, entirely ceased; the Holy Spirit, that divine inhabitant, forsook the house. Because it would have been utterly improper in itself, and inconsistent with the covenant and constitution God had established, that God should still maintain communion with man, and continue, by his friendly, gracious vital influences, to dwell with him and in him, after he was become a rebel, and had incurred God's wrath and curse. Therefore immediately the superior divine principles wholly ceased; so light ceases in a room, when the candle is withdrawn: and thus man was left in a state of darkness, woeful corruption and ruin; nothing but flesh, without spirit. *The inferior principles of self-love and natural appetite, which were given only to serve, being alone, and left to themselves, of course became reigning principles; having no superior principles to regulate or control them, they became absolute masters of the heart. *The immediate consequence of which was a fatal catastrophe, a turning of all things upside down, and the succession of a state of the most odious and dreadful confusion. *Man did immediately set up himself, and the objects of his private affections and appetites, as supreme; and so they took the place of God.* These inferior principles are like fire in an house; which, we say, is a good servant, but a bad master; very useful while kept in its place, but if left to take possession of the whole house, soon brings all to destruction…
> 
> Thus 'tis easy to give an account, how total corruption of heart should follow on man's eating the forbidden fruit, though that was but one act of sin, without God's putting any evil into his heart, or implanting any bad principle, or infusing any corrupt taint, and so becoming the author of depravity. Only God's withdrawing, as it was highly proper and necessary that he should, from rebel-man, being as it were driven away by his abominable wickedness, and men's natural principles being left to themselves, this is sufficient to account for his becoming entirely corrupt, and bent on sinning against God.



If I am understanding you, your view sounds a lot like Edwards, except that it backfits his assertions above into a pre-fall format, where as Edwards was talking about the corruption of the nature/will after the fall. This doesn't really prove anything, other than I am just making an observation. 

Most reformed, at least in my experience, have a view of the Will very close to Edwards proposal in_ Freedom of the Will _(the above was from his Original Sin treatise, though), which if adopted (as many have asserted) leads them to irreconcilable conclusions in regards to how Adam's will operates pre and post fall. As Edwards also wrote ...



> "He did not take away that grace from him while he was perfectly innocent, which grace was his original righteousness; but he only withheld his confirming grace...This grace God was not obliged to grant him [apart from the situation where he had obeyed, and God granted it as a reward]...and so the sin certainly followed the tempatation of the devil"



This doesn't really explain why sin _certainly_ followed. Since he also wrote...



> Adam had a sufficient assistance of God always present with him. to have enabled him to have obeyed, if he had used his natural abilities in endeavoring it; though the assistance was not such as it would have been after his confirmation, to render it impossible for him to sin.



Coming from an understanding of Edwards view of the will, Sam Storms writes this...



> Adam, says Edwards, was created upright and thus from the moment of his first existence preferred what is good and righteous. Consequently, to use Edward's own terminology, for Adam, who presently prefers good, to at present prefer evil is for him to prefer at the present what is at present not prefarale. Edwards himself insisted that this is logically absurd. But to predicate of Adam a preference for evil at precisely the moment he prefers good is to affirm just that. On the basis of what Edwards himself has said, the only way for Adam at present to prefer the opposte (i.e. evil) of what is at present preferred (i.e., good) is for God to directly alter or influence his present preference.



So, it seems, Edwards denies what seems to be the logical conclusion to his view of the will when applied to the pre-fall state. So, as reformed, is there another postulation of the will that doesn't lead to this inconsistentency -- unless, of course, you adopt the logical conclusion and say that Adam sinned because God removed his Spirit from being the "ruling principle," and left Adam to his own "free will." That is, to operate according to his own "self-love," to use Edwards' words -- which Edward's denies in saying God did not need to remove grace, but chose not to "give him more" (confirming/efficacous grace).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jun 4, 2010)

Hilasmos said:


> > The case with man was plainly this: when God made man at first, he implanted in him two kinds of principles.





Hilasmos said:


> If I am understanding you, your view sounds a lot like Edwards...



I certainly don't believe God "implanted" any evil in man, but rather left man on its own. The same with Double Predestination: God does not "implant" evil in the heart of man to harden him, but rather takes his gracious hand from above the man and gives him 100% power to fulfil his own lusts. That's called "PASSIVE hardening".


----------



## Hilasmos (Jun 4, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> > > The case with man was plainly this: when God made man at first, he implanted in him two kinds of principles.
> ...



Right, and neither does Edwards, as if evident in how he lays it out in the paragraph...there was not an "evil" principle implanted, but natural appetites, which left to themselves, will exalt the self if not govered by the superior principles.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jun 4, 2010)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> Adam, in his created state, was "able not to sin" just as he was able to sin. He was not bound (by his nature) to sin before the Fall.


 and he was *not made Neutral * being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness....

Samuel, I think the question you need to answer is "In What State was Adam Created" in order to answer the question of Adam's fall. Also, question if you have a presupposition "that God cannot make anything good BY NATURE" that is based on scripture or not based on scripture.


----------



## Dennis1963 (Jun 28, 2010)

Just by the fact God said do not eat of this tree, and Satan being in the garden is good enough to see there was a plan in the making. 
The simple fact of the matter is the fall was part of God's plan, or it wouldn't have happened. God is not the Author of sin, but, what if God created evil? R.C. Sproul Jr points out that the definition of sin is: He says, "does the law of God forbid the creation of evil? I would suggest that it just isn't there." 
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines sin, as "any lack of conformity to or the transgression of the Law of God." 

I do not think anyone can completely understand certain things about God and His ways; we should, on many issues, come to the conclusion as the Psalmist did, 
Psalm 139:6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 28, 2010)

If the point you are trying to make is that God's creation derives its goodness from him and depends, for its goodness, on his continual sustenance, then I agree. I think perhaps there was a communication breakdown because of the way you're using the terminology (i.e. I agree with Jonathan/Skyler's post).


----------

