# Is evil the result of the absence of God?



## earl40 (Aug 12, 2010)

I have read this as a possible explanation as why evil exists or how Adam sinned.

The title of this post I would change a little because no doubt God is never absent from any evil creature or act that creature does. So I would think a better phrase would be Augustine's thought of "absence of light results in darkness as absence of grace results in sin." A rough paraphrase.

So we have Adam created good, who can sin and not sin. Now he (Adam) does indeed sin, and the question is how did he if he was created good how can he sin? Is it possible that Adam sinned because The Lord withdrew grace from Adam and all that was left was a created being without grace that in of itself was not good since God withdrew His grace.

So is the flaw in this analogy Adam had something in himself that was created that was not good the problem? Or does this work in that anything created without the sustaining work (grace) of God *become* bad?


----------



## Porter (Aug 12, 2010)

I think it's important to view these things in light of the eternal decree of our purposive Triune God. Adam sinning was one of the many decreed and providential steps en route to a grand redemptive end. In the section on free-will (Chapter 9), the confession reads this way regarding pre-fall Adam: "_Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it._" This served the redemptive purpose of God (in its closer context, the violation of the covenant of works by Adam that would necessitate the redeeming work of Christ) in saving fallen sinners to the praise of His glory.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 12, 2010)

Porter said:


> I think it's important to view these things in light of the eternal decree of our purposive Triune God. Adam sinning was one of the many decreed and providential steps en route to a grand redemptive end. In the section on free-will (Chapter 9), the confession reads this way regarding pre-fall Adam: "_Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it._" This served the redemptive purpose of God (in its closer context, the violation of the covenant of works by Adam that would necessitate the redeeming work of Christ) in saving fallen sinners to the praise of His glory.


 
What does "but yet mutably" mean?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 12, 2010)

"But yet mutably" means that he was capable of change.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 13, 2010)

Interesting question. I immediately thought about everything being continually present before God, so in a sense, nothing can be apart from Him. On the other hand, we do have the sense in the scriptures where God has turned from people, particularly in the psalms and in Jesus' passion.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 13, 2010)

When we talk about God being present we often use the expression as shorthand for God being _present to bless_

When we talk of God being absent, we often mean that God is _absent to bless _or indeed that His being absent to bless can reach such a point that it is a positive curse.

The Omnipresent God can never be absent in an absolute sense even in Hell. See e.g. Psalm 139.

If the essence of goodness in Man is love for God at every point and every moment, see e.g.Great Commandment, is the essence of sin the withdrawl of love for God at some point and some moment;and since Man was created to positively love God at every point and every moment, does such withdrawl of love towards God constitute hatred towards God?

God ordained Adam's free act of sin for a good purpose.

Man could not have a free will unless God was totally sovereign.

Because God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, He can do things that boggle our minds.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 13, 2010)

py3ak said:


> "But yet mutably" means that he was capable of change.



So do you think the the "removal of grace" by The Lord could be answer how evil came to be?


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 13, 2010)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > "But yet mutably" means that he was capable of change.
> ...


 
No. Adam sinned because he was able to sin. There is no necessity to invent some sort of precipitating event of God's "removing" his grace in any way in order for Adam to sin. He simply did so because he was mutable (meaning he could, despite his good orientation, choose to sin).


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 13, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Man could not have a free will unless God was totally sovereign.


I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic (I'll make another thread if it is too much off topic), but do you mind explaining/pointing me to something that explains that? I've seen something similar to that intriguing statement in the Westminster Confession but never understood how that works out.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 13, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...


 
Able as to having hand to grab the fruit and teeth to bite it? I know that is not what you meant. 

Or able to "want" to eat it? If this so how does this square with the sermon on the mount and how even entertaining a sinful thought is sinful? In other words, does this possibly imply God gave Adam the ability and desire to sin?

Thank you for your replies Todd I really enjoy your thoughts!


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 13, 2010)

When we try to explain how evil came about we face some problems upfront:
1. We don't know in exactly what way God's will and human's will interact.
2. We don't really know what the individual specific act was that absolutly constituted original sin, the act of eating or the desire to eat. 
3. We are speculating about things that are mysterious to us in nature. 

These problems put a hamper in any attempt to describe exactly how evil came about. This is why I leave the matter roughly open and side with Bahnsen on the whole problem of evil thing by saying that God must have a good reason for allowing evil, so the problem goes away. I think more study into the philosophical aspects of this from a christian point of view might produce more answers but who knows.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 13, 2010)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > "But yet mutably" means that he was capable of change.
> ...


 
No. You might want to consult this previous thread.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 14, 2010)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



Thank you Ruben. I was comprehending most of the conversations till the Thomas Boston quote...he MUST have been a lawyer. Anyway, below seemed to sum up what I appeared to be saying that it was a lack or removal of grace that caused the fall.

"Thanks for the Thomas Bolton reference. It affirms my thoughts. Unchangeable righteousness is incommunicable. Hence the withdrawal of the Spirit to promote the fall." 

Correct or affirm what I am reading here.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 14, 2010)

Your quotation is from someone in that thread who was saying just what you were saying. In my estimation you both are wrong. Ruben pointed you to that thread because it, in the main, denies the idea of God's somehow at some point in primeval history "removing His Spirit" from Adam in order that the fall would occur. This is simply NOT CORRECT. I believe Ruben prefaced his pointing to that thread with "No" as answer to your question "was removal of Grace the cause of the fall?" The Thomas Boston quote does NOT support your idea. 

God did NOTHING to make the fall occur - if He had "removed His Spirit", thus causing Adam to sin, or "enabling" Adam to sin, then I don't see how God could stand against the charge that He caused the fall by His own immediate action. 

Adam fell because he was fallible. It's really that simple. God created Adam with the ability to freely choose good and to freely choose evil. He chose evil because that is what he wanted to choose, though he had no impediment to choosing the good, either. God gave Adam EVERYTHING that Adam needed to be able to withstand the temptation and to not sin. There was no "super-added" grace necessary for Adam to be obedient to God. Adam really had the ability to obey, and he really chose to disobey. 

We somehow want to give Adam an excuse when we say "God withdrew His Spirit from Adam and therefore Adam sinned." I think honestly we want to somehow equate our humanity with Adam's pre-fall humanity when we talk about this - we know that if WE were to be presented with Adam's choice, God would have to suppress our nature and restrain us by His spirit. Adam before the fall is NOT the same as we are - we are fatally flawed because of Adam's sin, and therefore we cannot assume that what we would require in order to obey is what Adam would have required prior to the Fall. Fact of the matter is that Adam was able in his own nature prior to the Fall (which is NOT ours) to obey without failure. His was a REAL fall into sin from a pristine condition... and he did it without any necessity for God to prompt that sin by "withdrawing". 

I'll speak very clearly and bluntly now. For God to have withdrawn His Spirit from Adam, who had not yet sinned, who was in perfect communion and fellowship with God, having not merited any chastisement or anything, would have been an unspeakable act of cruelty and unrighteous. Adam was in a right relationship with God - this is fellowship with God in Trinity - in perfect harmony - in relationship with the Spirit every bit as much as with the Father. If God had "withdrawn His Spirit", God would have been breaking fellowship with one who had merited no such result. This is unimaginable.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 14, 2010)

At the root saying that Adam sinned because of a withdrawal of grace, the Spirit, or some other thing is an appeal to see man as an innocent party in sin. We like to think highly of ourselves. We don't want to be culpable. We don't like being guilty; and we will blame God if necessary. Adam was created perfect, but not as a god. He was a man fully capable of being obedient and fully capable of being disobedient. He and he alone is responsible for his sin. This makes God's atonement all the more amazing.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 14, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Your quotation is from someone in that thread who was saying just what you were saying. In my estimation you both are wrong. Ruben pointed you to that thread because it, in the main, denies the idea of God's somehow at some point in primeval history "removing His Spirit" from Adam in order that the fall would occur. This is simply NOT CORRECT. I believe Ruben prefaced his pointing to that thread with "No" as answer to your question "was removal of Grace the cause of the fall?" The Thomas Boston quote does NOT support your idea.
> 
> God did NOTHING to make the fall occur - if He had "removed His Spirit", thus causing Adam to sin, or "enabling" Adam to sin, then I don't see how God could stand against the charge that He caused the fall by His own immediate action.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you Todd. I did see Ruben's "no" and I was trying to convey how the parts of the thread I could understand seemed to agree with what I wrote. The thread posted is good but the meat of the thread appeared to be written by lawyers.

So far as being unimaginable....I thought of this as did Augustine (which of course I could be wrong here).....also I can imagine satan tempting Adam while God is not "around".

---------- Post added at 10:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 AM ----------

---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------




LawrenceU said:


> At the root saying that Adam sinned because of a withdrawal of grace, the Spirit, or some other thing is an appeal to see man as an innocent party in sin. We like to think highly of ourselves. We don't want to be culpable. We don't like being guilty; and we will blame God if necessary. Adam was created perfect, but not as a god. He was a man fully capable of being obedient and fully capable of being disobedient. He and he alone is responsible for his sin. This makes God's atonement all the more amazing.


 
I agree we should not attempt to let Adam off the hook, or us. I assure you I am in no way am trying to do such. 

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

If I may add a quote by Rev. Winzer and how I also saw God leaving Adam "to himself" in the thread posted.

"Adam's nature was earthy. He was fobidden from following his earthy nature in the case of the forbidden fruit. He followed that nature and disobeyed God's directive when he chose to eat it. I fail to see how he acted contrary to his nature. He acted in accord with his nature *as left to himself without divine assistance.* Yes, he acted contrary to his righteousness; but the very purpose of the probation was to test that righteousness; so it was by nature a mutable righteousness, and one from which it was possible for him to fall by his own free choice."


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 14, 2010)

Right... but Rev. Winzer (he can correct me if I'm mistaken) would NOT have argued as you have. Adam NEVER HAD divine assistance, some sort of "grace" that was at a given point in primeval history withdrawn. He acted according to his abilities, and chose evil. There is no support in what Rev. Winzer stated in that thread for the idea that God had been assisting Adam all along to keep on the straight and narrow, and then suddenly withdrew some grace so that he fell into sin. God was the same before as he was after the Fall. No withdrawal necessary. The point is that God was not somehow propping Adam up by a gracious assistance, and then removed it. That is not what Rev. Winzer, Augustine, or anyone else has ever argued (as I understand it anyway). Rather, as I've said time and again, Adam, according to his own will, simply sinned. He did so of his own accord, and without any particular precipitating event other than the temptation lobbed at him by Satan. He, the man who was righteous, who had the ability to not sin, and the ability to sin, chose sin and thereby fell from his estate, taking all humanity with him. If we say that God precipitated the fall by removing some gracious assistance that he had previously been providing, then we are (meaning to or not) "letting Adam off the hook" by giving him an excuse for his fall. To argue for some sort of "divine assistance" that was withdrawn at some point is to argue that Adam could not have actually kept the Covenant of Works, and obeyed on his own - and that is to reject the proper doctrine. Adam WAS able, and failed. We must retain this, or scuttle the whole covenant understanding of Adam and of Christ a la Romans 5. Adam was created with every faculty he needed to obey. It is not due to any kind of withdrawal of grace that Adam fell. He just fell.


----------



## Calvinus (Aug 14, 2010)

Here are the three choices:
1) God put all the circumstances together for Adam to fall and Adam did. (middle knowledge, best of all possible worlds?)
2) God removed Himself giving Adam autonomy to decide to fall. (Open theism?)
3) God caused Adam to fall. Adam was the author of his own sin. God the cause. 

So we have some choices. Mine is that there is nothing that occurs in this universe that occurs outside of God's will. God's will is that He be glorified!


----------



## earl40 (Aug 14, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Right... but Rev. Winzer (he can correct me if I'm mistaken) would NOT have argued as you have. Adam NEVER HAD divine assistance, some sort of "grace" that was at a given point in primeval history withdrawn. He acted according to his abilities, and chose evil. There is no support in what Rev. Winzer stated in that thread for the idea that God had been assisting Adam all along to keep on the straight and narrow, and then suddenly withdrew some grace so that he fell into sin. God was the same before as he was after the Fall. No withdrawal necessary. The point is that God was not somehow propping Adam up by a gracious assistance, and then removed it. That is not what Rev. Winzer, Augustine, or anyone else has ever argued (as I understand it anyway). Rather, as I've said time and again, Adam, according to his own will, simply sinned. He did so of his own accord, and without any particular precipitating event other than the temptation lobbed at him by Satan. He, the man who was righteous, who had the ability to not sin, and the ability to sin, chose sin and thereby fell from his estate, taking all humanity with him. If we say that God precipitated the fall by removing some gracious assistance that he had previously been providing, then we are (meaning to or not) "letting Adam off the hook" by giving him an excuse for his fall. To argue for some sort of "divine assistance" that was withdrawn at some point is to argue that Adam could not have actually kept the Covenant of Works, and obeyed on his own - and that is to reject the proper doctrine. Adam WAS able, and failed. We must retain this, or scuttle the whole covenant understanding of Adam and of Christ a la Romans 5. Adam was created with every faculty he needed to obey. It is not due to any kind of withdrawal of grace that Adam fell. He just fell.



I appreciate your responses Todd. I totally agree that Adam was created with the ability to not sin and to sin. During this conversation I have been coming at how we be after we die and how we will be like Jesus in that we will not be able to sin. Also I agree Rev. Winzer was simply saying that Adam fell all by himself without God assisting him to do so. I think I will let the thought that Adam "simply sinned" rule for now. Though the thought that God was not standing next to Adam when satan tempted him will still bring the thought that grace, or God's presence was absent during this time.....do you see what I mean here?

Bless you all.


----------



## moral necessity (Aug 14, 2010)

earl40 said:


> Though the thought that God was not standing next to Adam when satan tempted him will still bring the thought that grace, or God's presence was absent during this time.....do you see what I mean here?
> 
> Bless you all.


 
I see what you mean. And, it's not to excuse, but explain.

Blessings!


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 14, 2010)

Who said God wasn't present by Adam's side when he sinned? God was there when Adam sinned just as He was right before Adam sinned. I'm thinking the best idea is to leave the speculations about how it is Adam sinned and simply let it be said that he did. God was there as always, all the same. Nothing changed in God, or by God's doing, that made Adam more likely to sin than at any other time prior.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 14, 2010)

Withholding persevering grace, which never had been given, is far different from withdrawing a hypothetical superadded grace that had been.

Sin is always hard to explain, because at root it is irrational.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 28, 2010)

It was as "easy" for Adam to keep the CoW as it was "difficult" for Christ to keep it. 

Adam had to do precisely nothing for his original righteousness to remain intact. That is, he just had to not eat from the Tree.

Why was eating an appropriate test?

Eating is for life, fellowship and pleasure.

By eating from the Tree, Adam was eating for his spiritual and physical death, was having fellowship with Satan and the already fallen Eve, and was taking pleasure in iniquity.

We still have the spiritual symbolism of eating in the Lord's Supper.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 4, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> God did NOTHING to make the fall occur - if He had "removed His Spirit", thus causing Adam to sin, or "enabling" Adam to sin, then I don't see how God could stand against the charge that He caused the fall by His own immediate action.



Isn't man, himself, fully _responsible_ of meeting the prerequisites of obedience towards God, and of _producing_ this obedience _out of himself_? God doesn’t _owe_ His grace to man, and thus, does no _injustice_ in restraining it from him – by which He also declares His own sovereignty and holiness. 



> Adam fell because he was fallible. It's really that simple. God created Adam with the ability to freely choose good and to freely choose evil. He chose evil because that is what he wanted to choose, though he had no impediment to choosing the good, either. God gave Adam EVERYTHING that Adam needed to be able to withstand the temptation and to not sin. There was no "super-added" grace necessary for Adam to be obedient to God. Adam really had the ability to obey, and he really chose to disobey.



If the reformed understanding of Adam's free will is not that of the Arminian heresy, why did Adam incline to evil, rather than good? Was the propability of Adam's fall 100%? If there were no lusts to be fulfilled in Adam's flesh, since he was created pure and righteous, what, then, inclined Adam to sin? If it was Satan, then how did Lucifer fall, if she was also created in the same estate as Adam? Surely it wasn't God (James 1:13).



> We somehow want to give Adam an excuse when we say "God withdrew His Spirit from Adam and therefore Adam sinned." I think honestly we want to somehow equate our humanity with Adam's pre-fall humanity when we talk about this - we know that if WE were to be presented with Adam's choice, God would have to suppress our nature and restrain us by His spirit. Adam before the fall is NOT the same as we are - we are fatally flawed because of Adam's sin, and therefore we cannot assume that what we would require in order to obey is what Adam would have required prior to the Fall. Fact of the matter is that Adam was able in his own nature prior to the Fall (which is NOT ours) to obey without failure. His was a REAL fall into sin from a pristine condition... and he did it without any necessity for God to prompt that sin by "withdrawing".
> 
> I'll speak very clearly and bluntly now. For God to have withdrawn His Spirit from Adam, who had not yet sinned, who was in perfect communion and fellowship with God, having not merited any chastisement or anything, would have been an unspeakable act of cruelty and unrighteous. Adam was in a right relationship with God - this is fellowship with God in Trinity - in perfect harmony - in relationship with the Spirit every bit as much as with the Father. If God had "withdrawn His Spirit", God would have been breaking fellowship with one who had merited no such result. This is unimaginable.


 
“The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD”?


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 4, 2010)

Whatever the motions in Adam's heart, which must remain somewhat of a mystery, or a total mystery rather, his sin was both predestined by God, and also his task of not eating of the Tree was easy for a holy man to do; even for an unholy man to do - speaking hypothetically.

Therefore his sin was gross, wilful, deliberate, flagrant, and showed pure enmity to God.

He knew, too, the trouble he was bringing on himself and on us us his children. His wickedness was comparable to that of Satan in rebelling against God, except worse if that is possible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Isn't man, himself, fully responsible of meeting the prerequisites of obedience towards God, and of producing this obedience out of himself? God doesn’t owe His grace to man, and thus, does no injustice in restraining it from him – by which He also declares His own sovereignty and holiness.


What you're missing here is the kind of grace in view. You are actually parroting a form of the Roman Catholic view of man that saw man's nature as subject to Fall outside of the _donum superadditum_ (superadded gift) from God that would keep it from falling. Your question pre-supposes that this is true in the asking of the question. If God gave grace to Adam to keep Him from falling then, No, he doesn't owe that grace to Adam but that assumes that superadded grace was necessary to prevent the Fall. The fact of the matter is that God created Adam upright but able to Fall. Adam's sin was his own and was not the result of a removal of grace.


InSlaveryToChrist said:


> If the reformed understanding of Adam's free will is not that of the Arminian heresy, why did Adam incline to evil, rather than good? Was the propability of Adam's fall 100%? If there were no lusts to be fulfilled in Adam's flesh, since he was created pure and righteous, what, then, inclined Adam to sin? If it was Satan, then how did Lucifer fall, if she was also created in the same estate as Adam? Surely it wasn't God (James 1:13).


There is not enough information on Satan from the Scriptures that indicates how or why he fell. Where Scripture falls silent men must also. As for Adam, he was created _good_ but mutably so.


InSlaveryToChrist said:


> “The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD”?


Again, this _assumes_ the Roman Catholic view of the _donum superadditum_. If there was nothing added to man's nature by God to restrain it from falling then there was nothing to take away.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 4, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> What you're missing here is the kind of grace in view. You are actually parroting a form of the Roman Catholic view of man that saw man's nature as subject to Fall outside of the _donum superadditum_ (superadded gift) from God that would keep it from falling. Your question pre-supposes that this is true in the asking of the question. If God gave grace to Adam to keep Him from falling then, No, he doesn't owe that grace to Adam but that assumes that superadded grace was necessary to prevent the Fall. The fact of the matter is that God created Adam upright but able to Fall. Adam's sin was his own and was not the result of a removal of grace.


 
Why would one have to assume superadded grace was needed to prevent a fall? Is not something created by God, which is good but mutable so, naturally going to degrade without grace to sustain its being?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

Huh? Mutable means changeable it does not mean degradable. Adam could choose to obey or choose to sin. It does not mean that Adam was created in such a way that his will would eventually degrade unless God kept grace to keep him from falling. All you've done is re-stated _donum superadditum_ in a different way.

In other words, Adam was created with original righteousness as part of his constituent character. God didn't hold grace within Adam for Adam to possess original righteousness but Adam possessed it as he bore the image of God in his original righteousness.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

Here is a more detailed explanation from Berkhof's Systematic Theology:


> D. The Original Condition of Man as the Image of God
> There is a very close connection between the image of God and the original state of man, and therefore the two are generally considered together. Once again we shall have to distinguish between different historical views as to the original condition of man.
> 
> 1. THE PROTESTANT VIEW. Protestants teach that man was created in a state of relative perfection, a state of righteousness and holiness. This does not mean that he had already reached the highest state of excellence of which he was susceptible. It is generally assumed that he was destined to reach a higher degree of perfection in the way of obedience. He was, something like a child, perfect in parts, but not yet in degree. His condition was a preliminary and temporary one, which would either lead on to greater perfection and glory or terminate in a fall. He was by nature endowed with that original righteousness which is the crowning glory of the image of God, and consequently lived in a state of positive holiness. The loss of that righteousness meant the loss of something that belonged to the very nature of man in its ideal state. Man could lose it and still remain man, but he could not lose it and remain man in the ideal sense of the word. In other words, its loss would really mean a deterioration and impairment of human nature. Moreover, man was created immortal. This applies not only to the soul, but to the whole person of man; and therefore does not merely mean that the soul was destined to have a continued existence. Neither does it mean that man was raised above the possibility of becoming a prey to death; this can only be affirmed of the angels and the saints in heaven. It does mean, however, that man, as he was created by God, did not bear within him the seeds of death and would not have died necessarily in virtue of the original constitution of his nature. Though the possibility of his becoming a victim of death was not excluded, he was not liable to death as long as he did not sin. It should be borne in mind that man’s original immortality was not something purely negative and physical, but was something positive and spiritual as well. It meant life in communion with God and the enjoyment of the favor of the Most High. This is the fundamental conception of life in Scripture, just as death is primarily separation from God and subjection to His wrath. The loss of this spiritual life would spell death, and would also result in physical death.
> ...


----------



## earl40 (Sep 4, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Huh? Mutable means that Adam could Fall. He could choose to obey or choose to sin. It does not mean that Adam was created in such a way that his will would eventually degrade unless God added grace to keep him from falling. All you've done is re-stated _donum superadditum_ in a different way.


 
If I may give an example. Let us say we have an apple which can stay good for a long while while in the fridge. If you take the apple out it can decay without the cool temperatures. So Adam is the apple that can stay good for a while, but if taken out of the coolness of the fridge it decays or falls. In other words, God was not there while Adam fell.

So far as "adding grace" to preventing the fall I am saying that grace was removed that was there before the fall. 

Of course I am probably wrong here because you see something I am writing here that appears to say Adam fell because there was something inherently bad in him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Read what I've highlighted in the Roman Catholic view. You're saying the exact same thing with different words. You're viewing God's grace as a preservative to hold Adam's natural appetites in check. God leaves for a moment, grace is removed, and Adam decays into sin.

You're providing a great apology for the Roman Catholic view of the image of God in man. It's rational and speculative and also very un-Biblical.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 4, 2010)

Rich, 

I realize my foolish error in supposing that a sinless being needs _a superadded grace_ to prevent him/her from falling. However, I'm not quite sure, if I can agree with your argument that, if the Bible doesn't _explicitly_ declare something, we shouldn't either. In other words, Are you saying that we must not make any conclusions of our own _out of_ the truths of the Bible, but rather believe the truths of the Bible _alone_?

My problem is that my understanding of man's will is not consistent with the functioning of Adam's will. _Shouldn't_ there be a way to harmonize all of Scripture?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Rich,
> 
> I realize my foolish error in supposing that a sinless being needs _a superadded grace_ to prevent him/her from falling. However, I'm not quite sure, if I can agree with your argument that, if the Bible doesn't _explicitly_ declare something, we shouldn't either. In other words, Are you saying that we must not make any conclusions of our own _out of_ the truths of the Bible, but rather believe the truths of the Bible _alone_?


 
If you're asking about good and necessary consequence then we can deduce things by good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures. There is no way to deduce that man was held from sinning in his constituent nature by God's grace. These ideas are arrived at by philosophical ideas brought from outside the Scriptures in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. 

In your case, above, you speculate about Satan's sin and I'm telling you there is nothing to start from. Good and necessary consequence has to be grounded in some Scripture. We have none on the nature of Lucifer's fall. We don't know how or why he fell. It is pure speculation and there is nothing Biblical about coming up with some sort of answer that the Scriptures don't provide in order to bolster a case that God must have created man in a way where grace was necessary to keep him from falling.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 4, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Read what I've highlighted in the Roman Catholic view. You're saying the exact same thing with different words. You're viewing God's grace as a preservative to hold Adam's natural appetites in check. God leaves for a moment, grace is removed, and Adam decays into sin.
> 
> You're providing a great apology for the Roman Catholic view of the image of God in man. It's un-Biblical.



I assure you I am not doing this on purpose. I am only asking questions.

"According to them original righteousness did not belong to the nature of man in its integrity, but was something supernaturally added."

So would we as protestants say Adam was righteous all by himself and did not need God to add this in his humanity to be good?

PS. I am not arguing just trying to understand because the above quote does appear to say Adam was good as God gave him the grace to be. I also will read your quotes carefully but this is why I love RC Sproul because he can takes concepts and explain them in Un George Will terms.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 4, 2010)

Adam fell in God's providence. 

In God's providence he was tempted and he fell. 

He was made holy but with the capability of falling into sin and he chose sin, in response to temptation from outside, when he didn't _need_ to fall.

Precisely what goes on in the mind and heart of such a human being - and when they are tempted - is mysterious, since we have never been completely holy mutably or immutably, and we're only told about Adam's _actions_ in the account we have.

We also find the temptations of Christ somewhat mysterious, since some people say almost without thinking, How could the temptation be ''real'' since Christ couldn't sin?, yet there are answers enough for them.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 4, 2010)

earl40 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Read what I've highlighted in the Roman Catholic view. You're saying the exact same thing with different words. You're viewing God's grace as a preservative to hold Adam's natural appetites in check. God leaves for a moment, grace is removed, and Adam decays into sin.
> ...



That's exactly what protestants should say. Adam was perfectly righteous in his initial estate. This is what the statement Rich quoted from Berkhof says right at the outset. He was perfectly just and perfectly holy at his creation, and in perfect communion with God. There was no act of God that caused him to sin - he fell when he was tempted, not because God had removed anything from him, but because he was able to fell and chose sin. The fact that he was able to sin did NOT indicate that there was any failure in him in terms of his righteousness. 

PS. I am not arguing just trying to understand because the above quote does appear to say Adam was good as God gave him the grace to be. I also will read your quotes carefully but this is why I love RC Sproul because he can takes concepts and explain them in Un George Will terms. [/QUOTE]


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 5, 2010)

I have yet another question: Do you think that after we have ascended into the heavenly places with our Lord and Saviour, we then will be granted by God to fully understand the fall of Adam and Lucifer? Also, Could you think of any good reasons why God would withhold this knowledge from us in _this_ life?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2010)

Perhaps. The good reason I can think of is that God was not pleased to reveal it to us. Frankly, there are so many things that God has not condescended to reveal to us that I spend zero time worrying about it.

I realize that there are those who really like to speculate about such things. In fact, I think that's what most people think that real theologians do. Calvin knew better:



> For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, has given the assistance of his Word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it. Hence the Psalmist, after repeatedly declaring (Psa 93, 96, 97, 99, &c.) that superstition should be banished from the world in order that pure religion may flourish, introduces God as reigning; meaning by the term, not the power which he possesses and which he exerts in the government of universal nature, but the doctrine by which he maintains his due supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 5, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Perhaps. The good reason I can think of is that God was not pleased to reveal it to us. Frankly, there are so many things that God has not condescended to reveal to us that I spend zero time worrying about it.
> 
> I realize that there are those who really like to speculate about such things. In fact, I think that's what most people think that real theologians do. Calvin knew better:
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for bearing with me all this time, dear Brother in Christ! A great obstacle I've struggled with many years has finally been removed! God has certainly been faithful to answer my prayers!


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 5, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I have yet another question: Do you think that after we have ascended into the heavenly places with our Lord and Saviour, we then will be granted by God to fully understand the fall of Adam and Lucifer? Also, Could you think of any good reasons why God would withhold this knowledge from us in _this_ life?



I'm sure we'll know many more things in the next world than we do now, though whether this is one of them hasn't been revealed.

We will not know everything because only God knows everything. Even Christ _in His human nature _ doesn't know everything, although He now has access to all knowledge.

It can be part of our fallenness to desire to know things which we are not entitled to know or it can be healthy curiosity.

_So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[fn, or to give insight] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6, ESV) _


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 5, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet another question: Do you think that after we have ascended into the heavenly places with our Lord and Saviour, we then will be granted by God to fully understand the fall of Adam and Lucifer? Also, Could you think of any good reasons why God would withhold this knowledge from us in _this_ life?
> ...


 
I think you're absolutely right! I realize I do often seek knowledge and understanding for selfish, carnal use. We should always be careful to look at our motives in absolutely everything we do; If all things are _not_ to be done for the glory of God alone, then _God is not worthy of all the praise He can possibly get from us_ - and _this_ is definitely not the case!


----------

