Decreeing Adam to sin

[Bernard_Marx]

[quote:36e8f60329][i:36e8f60329]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:36e8f60329]
Tom,
For lack of a better term, it seems as if my choosing to sin, in the light of Gods decree to complete the work that He has begun in me until the day of Christ Jesus, that is to -sanctify- his people, does not contradict His omnipotence or Lordship in the least when I rebel to sin against Him, hence it is a response by me in the divided sense. The compound sense is that God is omnipotent and man is not. The compound says that Gods will cannot be thwarted. The compound sense is that the work that God began will be completed. The divided sense is that while I am yet a child of God, and have a new heart and the Holy Spirit in me, I may at times still rebel and choose to sin instead of following Gods presence and commands.
We are not puppets..........

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:36e8f60329]

I think I get it. Could you please unpack this for me so I could understand??

 

[Radar]

How about this line of reasoning?

First, God created Adam and Eve innocent (meaning free from sin but capable of it), but not perfect (meaning incapable of sin, like saints in heaven). That was His sovereign decision. Thus by making the [i:6150bf474f]potentiality[/i:6150bf474f] for evil, He made the [i:6150bf474f]inevitability[/i:6150bf474f] of evil (finite creatures with the capability to sin will ultimately sin at some point in time). Adam and Eve could have eaten of any tree, including the tree of life, but if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. I have no reason to believe that if they ate off of the tree of life first, and even regularly, that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would vanish or be banished or whatever. It seems it would still be there, capable of bringing death if eaten of.

Thus, after choosing to make man with the potentiality of evil, and making no promise to rid them of that potentiality, God sovereignly chose that the very first couple would realize that potentiality and fall, all for His glory. How? I imagine the alternative this way: suppose Adam and Eve resisted the serpent. And imagine their children did too. And their grandchildren...on and on for generations. Until one fateful day, Adam's great-great-great grandson Billy Bob and his wife succombed and ate. Now what? We have a race of thousands or even millions of innocent people under the federal headship of Adam, and a new race under the fallen federal head of Billy Bob. Christ comes to redeem members of the fallen race under a third federal head of Himself. That diminishes Christ's glory because instead of Christ being the federal head of the righteous, he shares that honor with obedient Adam. What a mess. Later on, if Adam and Eve were to fall too, and still have more children, Adam himself could be the father of both the innocent race of those born before he fell, and the father of a fallen race born to him after he fell. What a bigger mess.

Lo, it was God's good pleasure that the potentiality for evil be realized and take man down from the very beginning, so that Christ would be exalted as the head of all the righteous who enter heaven, with a righteousness not of themselves but of Christ.

Thus, He decreed the fall. By His will He created man capable of falling, and He set the timing of that fall for Christ's greater glory.

Or do I need more sleep?

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by Radar]

 

[cupotea]

[quote:97b7e121d7][i:97b7e121d7]Originally posted by Radar[/i:97b7e121d7]
First, God created Adam and Eve innocent (meaning free from sin but capable of it), but not perfect (meaning incapable of sin, like saints in heaven). That was His sovereign decision. Thus by making the [i:97b7e121d7]potentiality[/i:97b7e121d7] for evil, He made the [i:97b7e121d7]inevitability[/i:97b7e121d7] of evil (finite creatures with the capability to sin will ultimately sin at some point in time). Adam and Eve could have eaten of any tree, including the tree of life, but if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. I have no reason to believe that if they ate off of the tree of life first, and even regularly, that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would vanish or be banished or whatever. It seems it would still be there, capable of bringing death if eaten of.

Thus, after choosing to make man with the potentiality of evil, and making no promise to rid them of that potentiality, God sovereignly chose that the very first couple would realize that potentiality and fall, all for His glory. How? I imagine the alternative this way: suppose Adam and Eve resisted the serpent. And imagine their children did too. And their grandchildren...on and on for generations. Until one fateful day, Adam's great-great-great grandson Billy Bob and his wife succombed and ate. Now what? We have a race of thousands or even millions of innocent people under the federal headship of Adam, and a new race under the fallen federal head of Billy Bob. Christ comes to redeem members of the fallen race under a third federal head of Himself. That diminishes Christ's glory because instead of Christ being the federal head of the righteous, he shares that honor with obedient Adam. What a mess. Later on, if Adam and Eve were to fall too, and still have more children, Adam himself could be the father of both the innocent race of those born before he fell, and the father of a fallen race born to him after he fell. What a bigger mess.

Lo, it was God's good pleasure that the potentiality for evil be realized and take man down from the very beginning, so that Christ would be exalted as the head of all the righteous who enter heaven, with a righteousness not of themselves but of Christ.

Thus, He decreed the fall. By His will He created man capable of falling, and He set the timing of that fall for Christ's greater glory.

Or do I need more sleep? [/quote:97b7e121d7]

I'll buy that! And that is supported by the LBCF and WCF.

[b:97b7e121d7]LBCF IX: Of Free Will[/b:97b7e121d7]

1 God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. (Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19)

2 Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it. (Eccles. 7:29; Gen. 3:6)

[b:97b7e121d7]WCF IX: Of Free Will[/b:97b7e121d7]

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.

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; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

 

[JWJ]

[quote:010ed37e44][i:010ed37e44]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:010ed37e44]
Jim,

I've seen different answers, but the bottom line is:

Basically, can God "draw man away" to commit an act of sin?

God tempts man in a sense of "testing" his faithfulness, but does He use His Sovereign power, which Calvinist claim is irresistible, "to lure or entice" men into sin?

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever] [/quote:010ed37e44]

You are mixing the compound sense with the divided sense. To borrow Matthew's illustration, you are trying to cram all your theological pieces on one chess board (sorry Matthew, I could not resist). The point being is that you must keep this text within its context and not try to use it in other areas of doctrine. Allow me to explain.

In my previous post, I should have made more plain (yes I am often guilty of not defining and clarifying terms / thoughts) that James is not speaking of ultimate or first causation but rather proximate or "immediate" causation. For example, when I said "If it means that God cannot will sin or even cause a man to sin, then we have a contradiction in Scripture." I was speaking of God being the ultimate or first cause of sinning. Hence, James is not saying that God is not the ultimate cause of sin and evil. James is not speaking from the point of view of God's absolute sovereignty. Rather he is speaking from the point of view of man and the "immediate" cause of man sinning. The point is that man can only blame his own sinful lust for his sin. The "immediate" cause of man's sin is not God but rather our own sinful and evil heart. From this perspective, God does not draw us away, but we are drawn away by our own sinful and evil lust.

Now to your first question "can God "draw man away" to commit an act of sin?" The answer depends what you mean by "draw away". If what you mean by "draw away" is in the context of James (i.e., immediate causation by our own sinful lust) then the answer is NO. However, if by "draw away" you mean God as the ultimate cause or even God working through His providence (i.e., through various other secondary causes / circumstances he puts in our path) I would say YES.

Now to your second question-"God tempts man in a sense of "testing" his faithfulness, but does He use His Sovereign power, which Calvinist claim is irresistible, "to lure or entice" men into sin?"

First of all you must not equate the word tempt in James with testing. This is not how James uses the word. Again, for James tempt means "man being drawn away by his own sinful and evil lust. The answer is the same as above. It all depends what you mean by "to lure or entice." If you are using these words in the context of James, NO God does not use His Sovereign irresistible power to lure or entice men to sin. However, if by lure or entice you mean God being the ultimate mover or irresistible power, then YES.

JWJ

 

[BobVigneault]

Radar, the only problem I see with your post is that there would be no need for another federal head from the race of men. Mankind would have been sealed in righteousness just as they were, instead, sealed in sin until the 2nd Adam.

The angels were tested on an individual basis and by nature we wish we were too.

Another interesting thought though and you began to hit on it is this:
If Adam didn't sin then HE would be our Messiah and we would worship him and that would be idolatry.

Again, God ordained man to sin for good and God glorying reasons.