# HOW Did Adam Sin?



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

A recent post on the Triablogue about Adam received a question asking how Adam could sin if he did not have a sin nature. This is something I've considered in the past and I found one of the responses very original and interesting. I'm copying it here for your thoughts:



> Unfortunately, since we are not in the position of Adam and since the Bible is silent on the issue, we can only answer with speculation. Granted, it is speculation that is informed by the rest of Scripture, but this isn't an issue that the Bible addresses specifically.
> 
> We do know that Adam's sin did not catch God off-guard. It was foreordained, yet in such a way that Adam freely sinned. These concepts are all clear from Scripture. While I do not have a perfect answer for the question, I will give you my speculation with the caveats that 1) I haven't really worked through this in its entirety and 2) I do not hold this position dogmatically and can easily be influenced away from it.
> 
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 17, 2007)

Let me understand your third paragraph correctly. Are you saying that you do in fact believe that it was impossible for God to create an Adam who would have, left to himself, been able to live sinlessly?

If I've heard you correctly, could you explain yourself further? Do you have Scriptural reason for arguing in this sense?


----------



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Let me understand your third paragraph correctly. Are you saying that you do in fact believe that it was impossible for God to create an Adam who would have, left to himself, been able to live sinlessly?
> 
> If I've heard you correctly, could you explain yourself further? Do you have Scriptural reason for arguing in this sense?



Sorry, my OP was unclear. This is not something I wrote. One of the guys responded to the question on the Triablogue and I copied it here.

Yes, I think he is saying that it would be impossible for God to create something that is incapable of degradation, a la the 2nd law of thermodynamics (impossible to create a square circle, impossible to create something physical that isn't subject to entropy). Since all physical created things are bound by entropy, so are spiritual things (like souls), and that souls express this by becoming corrupt unless God graciously intervenes.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 17, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Let me understand your third paragraph correctly. Are you saying that you do in fact believe that it was impossible for God to create an Adam who would have, left to himself, been able to live sinlessly?
> ...



No, actually my reading was muddled. I should have recognized it as something someone else wrote, not you.

At any rate, I think there is a serious problem with the statement about Adam's proposed inability not to sin except if restrained by God's grace. If Adam was not able to not sin, then there are MAJOR repercussions. (just as there would be such problems if Christ were unable to sin)


----------



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

Just to qualify, it looks like he's working this out for himself, too, and not trying to teach it as an actual conclusion. I just wanted to see what others thought.

Is "entropy" part of all things created? Is it so inherent that to create a human being capable of never sinning would be like creating a square circle? 

He's saying that this may help understand why Adam sinned from the perspective of his free choice, since we're still assuming that God foreordained the Fall. If Adam didn't have a sinful nature, what was it in him that still made the free choice of sin ontologically possible?


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 17, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I think he is saying that it would be impossible for God to create something that is incapable of degradation, a la the 2nd law of thermodynamics (impossible to create a square circle, impossible to create something physical that isn't subject to entropy). Since all physical created things are bound by entropy, so are spiritual things (like souls), and that souls express this by becoming corrupt unless God graciously intervenes.



That's quite a leap to make, going from a physical law concerning matter to an equivalent law concerning spiritual things. I see no reason whatsoever that would compel me to accept that there's a 2nd law of pneumodynamics.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 17, 2007)

You are also going to have to avoid the Roman error: that Adam's human nature was naturally deficient, that it tended toward concupiscence without the _donum superadditum_, special grace needed to remain sinless.

For what it's worth, Dabney in his Systematics tried to thread this needle, while trying not to go too far into speculative theology. He too appeals to the necessary support of divine grace; I think the figure he uses is that of a candle burning down--eventually it must run out of fuel, if it is not supplied. I'm still working out (if it can be worked) the distinction between what he posits, and the Roman version.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You are also going to have to avoid the Roman error: that Adam's human nature was naturally deficient, that it tended toward concupiscence without the _donum superadditum_, special grace needed to remain sinless.
> 
> For what it's worth, Dabney in his Systematics tried to thread this needle, while trying not to go too far into speculative theology. He too appeals to the necessary support of divine grace; I think the figure he uses is that of a candle burning down--eventually it must run out of fuel, if it is not supplied. I'm still working out (if it can be worked) the distinction between what he posits, and the Roman version.



Would you explain where the Roman formulation and that of Dabney err? I'm just asking because I am new to all of these explanations.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 17, 2007)

Dabney's always been my favorite source on this topic. Here is the excerpt that I've quoted a few times now:



> The mystery cannot be fully solved how the first evil choice could voluntarily arise in a holy soul; but we can clearly prove that it is no sound reasoning from the certainty of a depraved will to that of a holy finite will. 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 wrong. Now, while the positive requires a positive cause, it is not therefore inferable 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. The most probable account of the way sin entered a holy breast first, is this: An object was apprehended as in its mere nature desirable; not yet as unlawful. So far there is no sin. But as the soul, finite and fallible in its attention, permitted an overweening apprehension and desire of its natural adaptation to confer pleasure, to override the feeling of its unlawfulness, concupiscence was developed. And the element which first caused the mere innocent sense of the natural goodness of the object to pass into evil concupiscence, was privative, viz., the failure to consider and prefer God's will as the superior good to mere natural good. Thus natural desire passed into sinful selfishness, which is the root of all evil. So that we have only the privative element to account for. When we assert the certainty of ungodly choice in an evil will, we only assert that a state of volition whose moral quality is a defect, a negation, cannot become the cause of a positive righteousness. 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. So that the cases are not parallel: and the result, though mysterious, is not impossible. 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: its length being limited, it burns out.




First off it's impossible to find an analogy in our experience because this problem is peculiar to only Adam and Lucifer - each were created with holy and God-ward hearts (desires). They were truly righteous in their every inclination and no tug from a fallen nature.

Most probably God righteously witheld his



> perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infinite wisdom and grace, guarding the infinite and fallible attention of the soul against sin. Dabney



In this sense God is the cause but not the culpable cause of sin.

Satan and Adam were both mutable and they placed their desires in something besides God. This was not a sin because everything God made was good. The sin took place when the desire for the thing grew stronger than the desire to obey the revealed will of God. This is where the initial sin took place and the soul was corrupted. When we desire something above God's revealed will, that is lust.



> ...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 wrong. Now, while the positive requires a positive cause, it is not therefore inferable 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. Dabney


----------



## larryjf (Dec 17, 2007)

I would suggest that it was not just Adam and Lucifer, but also Eve and all of the fallen angels.

The way i looked at it is that Adam was holy and God-ward, but not confirmed in his holiness.

Let's look at angels since some fell and some did not (whereas we all fell in Adam)...

Those angels that did not fall are now confirmed in their holiness and unable to sin.
Those angels that fell are confirmed in sin and unable to change their position as well.

So, if Adam had not disobeyed God he would have been confirmed in his holiness and would not have been able to fall afterwards.

However, that would have never happened since God did foreordain the fall.


----------



## A5pointer (Dec 17, 2007)

larryjf said:


> I would suggest that it was not just Adam and Lucifer, but also Eve and all of the fallen angels.
> 
> The way i looked at it is that Adam was holy and God-ward, but not confirmed in his holiness.
> 
> ...




There is your answer


----------



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > *However, that would have never happened since God did foreordain the fall.*
> ...



That's not actually the whole answer I'm looking for. I know that God ordained it. But God's foreordains everything in a way that syncs with human agency. After Adam we have man acting sinfully because his inclination is to will evil. I'm looking for the human agency before the beginning of total depravity.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Dec 17, 2007)

Paul's answer made sense to me: "But, not having a sinful nature might be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to avoid sinning."


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 17, 2007)

larryjf said:


> I would suggest that it was not just Adam and Lucifer, but also Eve and all of the fallen angels.
> 
> The way i looked at it is that Adam was holy and God-ward, but not confirmed in his holiness.
> 
> ...



Of course it would never have happened... but that's not the point, and doesn't
answer the dilemma.

The point is to answer the question "from what did Adam fall?" Did he fall from
a position in which he was capable, in his own created righteousness, to satisfy the 
terms of the covenant to which he was a party, with his posterity - or not? To argue
that it was not possible for him to satisfy those terms is a very serious deviation (I believe)
from a sound covenant theology.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 17, 2007)

Maybe the answer is here in Chapter 9 on Free Will:

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.[1]

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] *but yet, mutably*, so that he might fall from it.[3]

[1] MAT 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. JAM 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. DEU 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

[2] ECC 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[3] GEN 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Of the communicable attributes given to man, immutability was not one of them.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 17, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > I would suggest that it was not just Adam and Lucifer, but also Eve and all of the fallen angels.
> ...



I answered the question...he fell because he was not "confirmed" in his righteousness. And, yes, he would have been confirmed had he not sinned...then he would be as the unfallen angels, able to sin no more.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 17, 2007)

Rome teaches that God removed the _d-s,_ and so in a totally natural course of events Adam could not help but fall. Sin is ordinary human nature.


> According to RC doctrine, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved from the stain of original sin (Immaculate Conception) and for others *all that was lost by the Fall is restored by Baptism*: “If anyone … says that [in Baptism] the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away … let him be anathema” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session V, “Decree Concerning Original Sin,” 5).


That is to say, baptism in RC theology is restorative of the _donum-s._

Dabney seems to say that Adam, not having an infinite element of positive righteousness, could "make room" (as it were) for sin.

Rome says concupiscence (inclination to wrongdoing) is natural. Dabney says, "concupiscence was developed." At least Dabney admits the result is mysterious, and not a natural occurrence.


----------



## MW (Dec 17, 2007)

Speculation is not needed to answer this question. The Scriptures explicitly teach Adam was of the earth earthy. The life which was set before Adam, however, was heavenly life. Man was made the sixth day and God instituted an eternal Sabbath rest on the seventh day. It was that rest which was set before Adam. Before he could enter it, however, Adam was given a test to see whether he would seek heavenly things or the things of earth. Left to himself, Adam naturally chose earthly things. His sin consisted in the fact that he acted according to his earthly nature. The fall clearly shows that man needs divine grace to seek heavenly things.

Note: the Romanist concept is that Adam was made neutral and needed divine grace to be righteous. The Reformed view is that Adam was made upright but earthly, and needed divine grace to inherit heavenly life. The Romanist view interprets Scripture according to that institution's corrupt sacerdotalism, whilst the Reformed view interprets Scripture according to Scripture's own eschatological orientation.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 22, 2007)

Armourbearer,

I'm curious as to how you would explain the fall of Satan, since he is not earthly as Adam was, and also since he had no one to tempt his as Eve did?

Blessings!


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 23, 2007)

moral necessity said:


> Armourbearer,
> 
> I'm curious as to how you would explain the fall of Satan, since he is not earthly as Adam was, and also since he had no one to tempt his as Eve did?
> 
> Blessings!



The existence of a tempter isn't necessary for sin to occur - I'm not sure how one would argue that a tempter IS necessary.

As far as "earthliness" goes, I don't think that's the way I'd have explained Adam's ability to sin. Point is, as a finite rational creature, Adam was created with the ability to sin, as were the angels. It seems to me that any such creature at all, be it purely spirit (as angels) or having a body as well (as men) must by nature have the quality "ability to sin" in its very being. If God were to have created either Adam or the angels with the characteristic "unable to sin", then the discussion about sin would of course be moot. They obviously both were created otherwise.

Actually, when it comes down to it, Adam's sin was in truly spiritual in nature - a failing in his very soul. Angels in their spirit-ness can just as easily as Adam, despite their having no bodies.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 23, 2007)

Todd,

Looks like you're up late as well. I didn't mean to imply that a tempter was necessary. I just threw that in there to see what Matthew would have to say about it. For, if one holds that we are neutral apart from God's influence, then it may seem that no sin should have been committed. If one holds that the law of entropy takes effect, then it would seem that sin is the natural consequence. Marty's answer seemed to bypass both of these options, and I just wondered what he'd say with regard to Satan, knowing no one tempted him, and knowing how he answered with regard to Adam being earthly.

I agree...we must have been created with an ability to sin, along with the angels. Thanks for your helpful thoughts. By the way, it looks like you have a nice collection of Owen books in the background of your photo...am I correct?

Blessings!


----------



## MW (Dec 31, 2007)

moral necessity said:


> I just threw that in there to see what Matthew would have to say about it. For, if one holds that we are neutral apart from God's influence, then it may seem that no sin should have been committed.



Please read the note in the second paragraph of my post where I distinguish between Romanist neutrality and Reformed eschatology. Adam was not neutral apart from God's influence. He was upright, and so fully able in and of himself to keep God's commandments. The Scriptures testify, however, that he was "of the earth." That was his nature and condition. He ate, slept, worked the garden, married, and exercised lordship over earthly creatures. He did not enjoy the blessings of heavenly life. The prohibition of the tree shows that he had not yet attained perfection. Salvation history demonstrates that man can only enjoy heavenly life in and through the Man from Heaven, of Whom the first man was a type.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2007)

Was Adam under a probationary period? If he had lasted for a duration, would God have confirmed him? Or else he would have always been a situation of danger, like living next to a cliff.


Also, what evidence is there that Satan fell first and led Adam into sin. Could they have all fallen together at the same time into one big Fall?


----------



## sotzo (Dec 31, 2007)

> Note: the Romanist concept is that Adam was made neutral and needed divine grace to be righteous. The Reformed view is that Adam was made upright but earthly, and needed divine grace to inherit heavenly life. The Romanist view interprets Scripture according to that institution's corrupt sacerdotalism, whilst the Reformed view interprets Scripture according to Scripture's own eschatological orientation.



Rev. Winzer...can you unpack the first two sentences here a bit? When you speak of neutrality in the RC view vs upright in the Reformed view, is this with respect to Adam choosing to obey God's revealed will?

If so, how does "neutrality" differ from "uprightness"? The latter appears to me to indicate that Adam did not have the capability to sin, which is clearly not the case.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 31, 2007)

Usually, Adam is described as the only one created with a truly free will in the Arminian sense of the power of contrary choice. He then lost that freedom in the Fall (and all humanity lost that freedom in Adam). No one can choose God now unless the Holy Spirit change that person. It is very important that we honor the "tob meod" at the end of Genesis 1: all was created "very good," including human beings. Adam had moral rectitude. I do not believe, therefore, that there was any inherent predisposition on the part of Adam to sin, although there was the possibility of him sinning. Ultimately, however, the problem of the origin of evil is a mystery to us. We can know that Adam introduced it to humanity (if that isn't too much of an understatement).


----------



## Davidius (Dec 31, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Was Adam under a probationary period? If he had lasted for a duration, would God have confirmed him? Or else he would have always been a situation of danger, like living next to a cliff.
> 
> 
> Also, what evidence is there that Satan fell first and led Adam into sin. Could they have all fallen together at the same time into one big Fall?



What is heavenly life?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2007)

Heavenly life? 

It wouldn't be to always be in a state of mutability and able to fall. 

Adam, if he had completed his probation, would have been confirmed and would have basically entered into a heavenly existence even greater than existed already in Paradise - so it seems. 

But there is much speculation.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 31, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Heavenly life?
> 
> It wouldn't be to always be in a state of mutability and able to fall.
> 
> ...



No way. This would make Christ a secondary option. Perhaps an eden existance at best for adam, but never merit eternal heavenly life.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 31, 2007)

The problem with the logic outlined is that you are trying to make God deal with probability.

The probability that Man or Angel could measure up to perfection is *0*.

Man (and Angel, presumably) were created _very good_ - that is - *not* _perfect_.

Only God can be perfect - otherwise God is creating God - which is illogical.

 (but a Scriptural position, I daresay)


----------



## MW (Dec 31, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Rev. Winzer...can you unpack the first two sentences here a bit? When you speak of neutrality in the RC view vs upright in the Reformed view, is this with respect to Adam choosing to obey God's revealed will?
> 
> If so, how does "neutrality" differ from "uprightness"? The latter appears to me to indicate that Adam did not have the capability to sin, which is clearly not the case.



In Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian systems the first man is viewed as having no positive moral character, and indifferent to good and evil. He might freely choose to do the one or the other. This is in direct opposition to Scripture, which teaches God made man upright, and in His own image. The fact that Jesus Christ is the second Adam also suffices to refute it.

The fact that man was made upright does not necessitate the conclusion he had no capacity for sin. Adam's state meant he was "able not to sin" (potuit non peccare) but not that he was "not able to sin" (non potuit peccare).


----------



## sotzo (Dec 31, 2007)

> In Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian systems the first man is viewed as having no positive moral character, and indifferent to good and evil. He might freely choose to do the one or the other. This is in direct opposition to Scripture, which teaches God made man upright, and in His own image. The fact that Jesus Christ is the second Adam also suffices to refute it.
> 
> The fact that man was made upright does not necessitate the conclusion he had no capacity for sin. Adam's state meant he was "able not to sin" (potuit non peccare) but not that he was "not able to sin" (non potuit peccare).



So in the Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian views would it be appropriate to say that Adam was amoral? And that in the Reformed view Adam was moral with the capacity to be immoral?


----------



## MW (Dec 31, 2007)

sotzo said:


> So in the Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian views would it be appropriate to say that Adam was amoral? And that in the Reformed view Adam was moral with the capacity to be immoral?



It might not be appropriate to employ the word "amoral" because that has connotations there was no moral obligation laid on Adam, whereas Semi-Pelagians and Pelagians acknowledge he was bound to obey his Maker. But if "amoral" is taken to mean that he was not predisposed to good or evil then that would properly characterise their position. Conversely the Reformed view is that Adam was "moral" in the sense that he was disposed to abhor evil and cleave to good.

It is worthy of notice that the two positions bear directly on the question of the depravity and inability of sinners. If Adam were neutral then the fall would not have completely corrupted his ability to do good. But since he was positively righteous, as the Reformed maintain, the fall entails that he has lost this righteousness and is rendered incapable of spiritually good works.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2007)

Thanks for your reply Matthew.

JD makes a good point, to which I would like to hear a reply by from somebody. 



jdlongmire said:


> The problem with the logic outlined is that you are trying to make God deal with probability.
> 
> The probability that Man or Angel could measure up to perfection is *0*.
> 
> ...




Adam and Christ were very much different, in that Adam was a created man and Christ was already God, (ie. that Christ had the nature of God dwelling in him). Both Adam and Christ had a principle or nature that drove them, as we all do...right? Spiritual acts flow from a spiritual principle. Godly acts flow from a Godly principle. Carnal acts flow from a carnal principle. Sinful acts flow from a sinful principle. Wouldn't Adam have had to be possessed of the same principle of God's nature that we as believers are today in order for him to perform holy acts? Christ already was possessed of this principle of God's nature since he in fact was God. So, are we saying that Adam was created with this same Godly nature or principle in him that we as believers have? And, if so, are we saying that Adam fell and corrupted that Godly nature or principle (if that is even possible)? If so, then it doesn't seem to make much sense to me that a man needs to be born again in order to be saved. To me, he would rather only need to have that spiritual nature or principle restored from its fall. It tends to make more sense to me that Adam, even in his state before the fall, would have needed to be been born again (have a new spiritual principle or nature imparted to him) in order for him to be holy. Only God is holy, along with those in whom he chooses to indwell with his Spirit or spiritual nature or principle.

This makes sense to me for now. Somebody help me see more clearly what I'm missing if I so am.

Blessings!


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Somebody help me see more clearly what I'm missing if I so am.



The problem arises when a comparison is made between Adam and a regenerate person. Adam would be treated according to his own native righteousness, whilst the regenerate are dealt with according to an alien righteousness. Adam possessed a perfect earthly nature, whereas the regenerate are born from above and continue to struggle with fallen earthly principles. The two are incompatible.

We're on the biblical track when we restrict all comparisons to the two Adams. The first Adam's deficiency lies solely in the fact that he lacked heavenly life. He was natural, not spiritual. The first Adam lacked what could only be bestowed in the second Adam. Hence the fall. Hence also the resurrection. First the natural, then the spiritual. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. The first Adam was ordained to eternal life, but it was in the second Adam and not in himself that this life would be obtained.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 1, 2008)

Thanks, Matthew! I'll reflect more on what you said.

In my mind, it seems correct to say that Adam did not have a spiritual nature or principle within him driving him. He was solely carnal or earthly in nature and principle. Perhaps that is what you are conveying when you say, "The first Adam's deficiency lies solely in the fact that he lacked heavenly life." Am I understanding you correctly?

If you get the opportunity, could you direct me to a few good books that may deal with this topic? Thanks again, and blessings to you in the new year!


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> If you get the opportunity, could you direct me to a few good books that may deal with this topic? Thanks again, and blessings to you in the new year!



Most reformed dogmatics will discuss it under the heading of the covenant of works, and the life promised in that covenant. Turretin is especially helpful. From a biblical theology point of view, one might consult Geerhardus Vos with profit, who deals with it in his own inimitable fashion both in his Pauline Eschatology and in the volume of collected writings edited by Gaffin. Vos perhaps more than any other has helped to crystallise the importance of eschatology to the reformed system of biblical interpretation. Blessings!


----------

