HOW Did Adam Sin?

[sotzo]

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]

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]

Thanks for your reply Matthew.

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

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)

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]

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]

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]

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!