The Fall, How?

[Eleanor]

That's a popular Theological "opinion". SO - as far as you're concerned an aborted, or newborn baby who dies, is subject to incineration.

In my neck of the woods, Eph 2:3 is not theological opinion, it is the mind of God. . ."by nature, objects of wrath." We are born with our nature.

The problem is not theology, the problem is unbelief.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

How did you get that human nature that is guaranteed to sin?

The difference between the nature God created us with---good with no experience of even what sin was----and the nature that came to all men because of his choice to do what God said not to, is that the nature of humanity changed. Before we had no knowledge of evil. Now we do. If Adam hadn't done what he did we still wouldn't have knowledge of evil.

So why did Adam and Eve, with their "Perfect natures" throw God under the bus in EXACTLY the fashion detailed in James 1???

 

[Arial]

So why did Adam and Eve, with their "Perfect natures" throw God under the bus in EXACTLY the fashion detailed in James 1???

It wasn't exactly the same way. James was written how many thousands of years later? We are not created neutral since Adam, and our will is not free. It is as Paul says, sin is our slavemaster.

 

[sawdust]

If they didn't have a complete desire to obey God and please Him, He wouldn't have called them good.

Why do you assume having the desire to please God is the only good there is? Maybe being created with no desire is what God considered good because then Adam and Eve could determine their preferences from their own free will rather than by any predetermined bias.

Just a thought.

 

[Carbon]

Why do you assume having the desire to please God is the only good there is?

Why do you assume I assume that?

Maybe being created with no desire is what God considered good because then Adam and Eve could determine their preferences from their own free will rather than by any predetermined bias.

Just a thought.

Well since Adam spent time and walked with God, it would be obvious He had a desire. God is good, God alone is worthy of worship, and man was created to worship God. Do you assume God created man for something different?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:31.

God called His creation good. Adam and Eve were created in a state of innocence. And if this be the case, why did they sin?

They were TEMPTED, enticed, and allowed their "personal desire" (lust) to conceive - just like we do.

And we also know God does not tempt anyone with evil, Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. James 1:13.

Except we KNOW from the Biblical text that God DOES TEMP (test, try) people. Biblically He SAYS HE DOES. James 1:13 is an "ellipse" God "TEMPTS", but he DOESN'T Tempt "with EVIL". Of course testing Abraham by telling him to kill his son - might be an issue there.

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5.

Now Adam and Eve had no reason or motive to sin. Meaning they had absolutely no reason to sin. Adam and Eve were declared good, and if that be the case their inclinations were only good, they had no motive whatsoever. If they didn't have a complete desire to obey God and please Him, He wouldn't have called them good.

They simply did not have the means to sin because they didn't have a motive.

Sure they did!!! they'd been TOLD DIRECTLY BY GOD NOT to do something. and in Human Nature, THAT, in itself, produces the inclination to DO IT ANYWAY. So - with a little enticing assistance from satan, they were off to the races. Why were they found next to the very tree that they weren't supposed to have anything to do with, in the PERFECT location for satan to pull their chains???

 

[sawdust]

Why do you assume I assume that?


Well since Adam spent time and walked with God, it would be obvious He had a desire. God is good, God alone is worthy of worship, and man was created to worship God. Do you assume God created man for something different?

He also desired to disobey God so it's not so obvious to me he was created with a desire to please God. I contend he was created without desire for either but given volition that is truly free to choose what he desired most for himself and it was just the way God wanted it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

And God saw everything that he had made and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day (Genesis 1:31).

God called his creation good. Adam and Eve were created in a state of innocence. If this be the case, why did they sin?

[Insert quotes from scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith.]

Now, Adam and Eve had no reason or motive to sin, meaning they had absolutely no reason to sin. Adam and Eve were declared good and, if that be the case, their inclinations were only good. They had no motive whatsoever. If they didn't have a complete desire to obey God and please him, he wouldn't have called them good. They simply did not have the means to sin because they didn't have a motive.

This is a serious problem that many theologians have (are dealing with) dealt with. Which is the problem of evil.

Thoughts?

I am sure this will come as no great shock to you, @Carbon, but I have an uncommon take on this. It is not something I have heard discussed in any Christian church, ministry, or organization. It is just me contemplating scientific and theological facts and seeking ways to bring them into harmony. After a couple of years of wrestling with questions like this—especially those involving Adam and Eve and the events in Eden—I have developed a tentative and provisional view. Let me share it with you and maybe get some feedback (or even pushback).

At this point, I am exploring a distinction between wrongdoing and sin, the former representing a horizontal dimension (morally culpable before others) and the latter representing a vertical dimension (morally culpable before God). Such a distinction would help make sense of why some things can be good in human terms but a sin against God.

So, humans are not unique with respect to wrongdoing, but they are entirely unique with respect to sin. There are many animal groups that exhibit what skeptic Michael Shermer called "premoral sentiments" that developed from animal sociality. These are things like attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, awareness of and response to the social rules of the group, and so on. I am willing to grant that some animals are capable of wrongdoing and may be held culpable to those in their group—the evidence is substantial and basically impossible to ignore—but that wrongdoing cannot be a sin against God without a covenant relationship defining that term.

As far as I can tell, it would seem to follow from the biblical witness that there is no such thing as sin apart from a covenant relationship with God. So, humans are sinners while elephants are not. Out of all the creatures on Earth, only humans are capable of and culpable for sin, despite the fact that other creatures demonstrate characteristics of moral agency. I am considering that this would have been the case for humans prior to Adam and the garden, being culpable for wrongdoing against one another but not culpable for sin against God. Sin was a meaningless term until the events of the garden.

Once that covenant relationship was established, however, sin became a potential—but not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God (thus preserving Augustinian orthodoxy). That broken covenant relationship is why we require salvation. The first federal head became a covenant-breaker (as are all those in Adam), while the last federal head became a covenant-keeper (as are all those in Christ).

P.S. This view would also explain how Adam and Eve could understand disobedience as wrong.

 

[Carbon]

I am sure this will come as no great shock to you, @Carbon, but I have an uncommon take on this. It is not something I have heard discussed in any Christian church, ministry, or organization. It is just me contemplating scientific and theological facts and seeking ways to bring them into harmony. After a couple of years of wrestling with questions like this—especially those involving Adam and Eve and the events in Eden—I have developed a tentative and provisional view. Let me share it with you and maybe get some feedback (or even pushback).

At this point, I am exploring a distinction between wrongdoing and sin, the former representing a horizontal dimension (morally culpable before others) and the latter representing a vertical dimension (morally culpable before God). Such a distinction would help make sense of why some things can be good in human terms but a sin against God.

So, humans are not unique with respect to wrongdoing, but they are entirely unique with respect to sin. There are many animal groups that exhibit what skeptic Michael Shermer called "premoral sentiments" that developed from animal sociality. These are things like attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, awareness of and response to the social rules of the group, and so on. I am willing to grant that some animals are capable of wrongdoing and may be held culpable to those in their group—the evidence is substantial and basically impossible to ignore—but that wrongdoing cannot be a sin against God without a covenant relationship defining that term.

As far as I can tell, it would seem to follow from the biblical witness that there is no such thing as sin apart from a covenant relationship with God. So, humans are sinners while elephants are not. Out of all the creatures on Earth, only humans are capable of and culpable for sin, despite the fact that other creatures demonstrate characteristics of moral agency. I am considering that this would have been the case for humans prior to Adam and the garden, being culpable for wrongdoing against one another but not culpable for sin against God. Sin was a meaningless term until the events of the garden.

Once that covenant relationship was established, however, sin became a potential—but not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God (thus preserving Augustinian orthodoxy). That broken covenant relationship is why we require salvation. The first federal head became a covenant-breaker (as are all those in Adam), while the last federal head became a covenant-keeper (as are all those in Christ).

P.S. This view would also explain how Adam and Eve could understand disobedience as wrong.

Does this view say there were humans created before Adam and Eve?

 

[Carbon]

He also desired to disobey God so it's not so obvious to me he was created with a desire to please God. I contend he was created without desire for either but given volition that is truly free to choose what he desired most for himself and it was just the way God wanted it.

What can you show me in scripture for proof that Adam desired to disobey God. Before they were deceived of course.

 

[sawdust]

What can you show me in scripture for proof that Adam desired to disobey God. Before they were deceived of course.

I did say "desired to disobey God" but that is a misnomer really. It's more a matter of desiring something more than desiring obedience to God. Adam wasn't deceived, he knew he was not meant to eat but he did it anyway because he desired to eat rather than obey God.

You seem to be suggesting in your OP that Adam and Eve were created inherently good, at least in respect to their intentions, yet I see no good argument for it. Nor do I see how they could be created inherently good in respect to anything they were for God alone is inherently good (Matthew 19:17) and seeing as He is uncreated it would imply nothing can be created inherently good. However, I don't see that this limits God in declaring something to be good if it is created exactly in accordance with His will. And if Adam is created without bias of preference and is given perfect freedom to determine his own preference, then why cannot he be declared good even if he has no desire for good or evil.

 

[Marilyn C]

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:31.

God called His creation good. Adam and Eve were created in a state of innocence. And if this be the case, why did they sin?

The WCF reads:
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy council of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. Chapter 3, section 1.

And we also know God does not tempt anyone with evil, Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. James 1:13.
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5.

Now Adam and Eve had no reason or motive to sin. Meaning they had absolutely no reason to sin. Adam and Eve were declared good, and if that be the case their inclinations were only good, they had no motive whatsoever. If they didn't have a complete desire to obey God and please Him, He wouldn't have called them good.

They simply did not have the means to sin because they didn't have a motive.

This is a serious problem that many theologians have (are dealing with) dealt with. Which is the problem of evil.


Thoughts?
`

God made Adam and Eve `good,` however God knew that a moral character needs experience of making choices. Thus, God gave them a choice.

A moral character - eg. faithfulness needs opportunity to be faithful, and compassion, loving kindness, tender mercy, truthful, just, etc all need to be developed over time.

And praise God we are able to partake of the Divine nature of Christ who has a perfect moral character. (2 Peter 1: 4)

 

[Eleanor]

I am sure this will come as no great shock to you, @Carbon, but I have an uncommon take on this. It is not something I have heard discussed in any Christian church, ministry, or organization. It is just me contemplating scientific and theological facts and seeking ways to bring them into harmony. After a couple of years of wrestling with questions like this—especially those involving Adam and Eve and the events in Eden—I have developed a tentative and provisional view. Let me share it with you and maybe get some feedback (or even pushback).
At this point, I am exploring a distinction between wrongdoing and sin, the former representing a horizontal dimension (morally culpable before others) and the latter representing a vertical dimension (morally culpable before God). Such a distinction would help make sense of why some things can be good in human terms but a sin against God.

So, humans are not unique with respect to wrongdoing, but they are entirely unique with respect to sin. There are many animal groups that exhibit what skeptic Michael Shermer called "premoral sentiments" that developed from animal sociality. These are things like attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, awareness of and response to the social rules of the group, and so on. I am willing to grant that some animals are capable of wrongdoing and may be held culpable to those in their group—the evidence is substantial and basically impossible to ignore—but that wrongdoing cannot be a sin against God without a covenant relationship defining that term.

Sounds like the animals were likewise affected by the fall.
Scripture reports that all creation was affected by it.

As far as I can tell, it would seem to follow from the biblical witness that there is no such thing as sin apart from a covenant relationship with God. So, humans are sinners while elephants are not. Out of all the creatures on Earth, only humans are capable of and culpable for sin, despite the fact that other creatures demonstrate characteristics of moral agency. I am considering that this would have been the case for humans prior to Adam and the garden, being culpable for wrongdoing against one another but not culpable for sin against God. Sin was a meaningless term until the events of the garden.

Once that covenant relationship was established, however, sin became a potential—but not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God (thus preserving Augustinian orthodoxy). That broken covenant relationship is why we require salvation. The first federal head became a covenant-breaker (as are all those in Adam), while the last federal head became a covenant-keeper (as are all those in Christ).

P.S. This view would also explain how Adam and Eve could understand disobedience as wrong.

Interesting and appealing.

However, Scripture reports no covnenant in the Garden, only law. I tend to go with Scriptural presentations.
And there is no need for covenant to make your scenario work.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Does this view say there were humans created before Adam and Eve?

Well, again, I was sharing my own take on this, and on my view there were several million people on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve.

 

[Carbon]

Well, again, I was sharing my own take on this, and on my view there were several million people on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve.

Okay thanks

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Interesting and appealing.

However, Scripture reports no covenant in the garden, only law. I tend to go with scriptural presentations.

To be fair, I'm arguing from the perspective of a Reformed covenant theology, so a lot of potentially controversial things are taken for granted, like a covenant of works in the garden—which includes, but is not limited to, law. I believe that a rigorous, solid biblical case is made for a Reformed covenant theology but that would be for a different thread. (For example, see Richard P. Belcher Jr., "The Covenant of Works in the Old Testament," in Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives, eds. Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020].) When discussing ideas pertaining to the OP, many things will have to be assumed for the sake of argument because they are separate from the OP's question.

And there is no need for covenant to make your scenario work.

I would love for you to elaborate on this, as I am keenly interested.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Okay thanks

So, no feedback or pushback? For example, "While I don't agree with your view, I feel compelled to point out that it seems to contradict [insert doctrine] in Christian orthodoxy. Are you aware of this criticism? If so, how have you dealt with it?" Something like that. I rely heavily on the feedback and pushback of our family of God. Iron sharpens iron, and all that.

 

[Eleanor]

To be fair, I'm arguing from the perspective of a Reformed covenant theology, so a lot of potentially controversial things are taken for granted, like a covenant of works in the garden—which includes, but is not limited to, law. I believe that a rigorous, solid biblical case is made for a Reformed covenant theology but that would be for a different thread. (For example, see Richard P. Belcher Jr., "The Covenant of Works in the Old Testament," in Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives, eds. Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020].) When discussing ideas pertaining to the OP, many things will have to be assumed for the sake of argument because they are separate from the OP's question.
I would love for you to elaborate on this, as I am keenly interested.

Well, I wasn't negating law, I was just not ascribing the word "covenant" to the law of Ge 2:17.

There are no stated conditional agreements (covenants) in the OT that are not bi-lateral; viz, Abrahamic (Ge 17) and Sinaitic (Ex 19-24),
which God's command/law in the garden was not.

 

[Carbon]

So, no feedback or pushback? For example, "While I don't agree with your view, I feel compelled to point out that it seems to contradict [insert doctrine] in Christian orthodoxy. Are you aware of this criticism? If so, how have you dealt with it?" Something like that. I rely heavily on the feedback and pushback of our family of God. Iron sharpens iron, and all that.

Sorry, I'm pretty distracted, lots going on. I do not agree there were people before Adam. But I also have not dug deeply into this theory. I will try to give some more feedback

 

[Carbon]

I am sure this will come as no great shock to you, @Carbon, but I have an uncommon take on this. It is not something I have heard discussed in any Christian church, ministry, or organization. It is just me contemplating scientific and theological facts and seeking ways to bring them into harmony. After a couple of years of wrestling with questions like this—especially those involving Adam and Eve and the events in Eden—I have developed a tentative and provisional view. Let me share it with you and maybe get some feedback (or even pushback).

No, not much comes as a surprise to often as of late.

At this point, I am exploring a distinction between wrongdoing and sin, the former representing a horizontal dimension (morally culpable before others) and the latter representing a vertical dimension (morally culpable before God). Such a distinction would help make sense of why some things can be good in human terms but a sin against God.

This is pretty much old news, is it not?
The distinction of wrongdoing/sin in humanity and God has always been different. That's nothing new under the sun. Wrongdoing/sin is wrongdoing and sin as far as God is concerned. But, with humans? That could be different depending on where you're talking about. So, it is subjective horizontally.

So, humans are not unique with respect to wrongdoing, but they are entirely unique with respect to sin.

From their (human) perspective, sure. But you are also speaking from the perspective that there were humans before Adam. So, you must prove that first, I would say.

There are many animal groups that exhibit what skeptic Michael Shermer called "premoral sentiments" that developed from animal sociality. These are things like attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, awareness of and response to the social rules of the group, and so on. I am willing to grant that some animals are capable of wrongdoing and may be held culpable to those in their group—the evidence is substantial and basically impossible to ignore—but that wrongdoing cannot be a sin against God without a covenant relationship defining that term.

It seems something that God put in place.

As far as I can tell, it would seem to follow from the biblical witness that there is no such thing as sin apart from a covenant relationship with God. So, humans are sinners while elephants are not. Out of all the creatures on Earth, only humans are capable of and culpable for sin, despite the fact that other creatures demonstrate characteristics of moral agency. I am considering that this would have been the case for humans prior to Adam and the garden, being culpable for wrongdoing against one another but not culpable for sin against God. Sin was a meaningless term until the events of the garden.

Sin has always been sin. And Adam was not the first sinner, Satan was. And no one would have known if the Law did not reveal it. May I suggest adding Romans 7 to your study?

Once that covenant relationship was established, however, sin became a potential—but not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God (thus preserving Augustinian orthodoxy).

I don't know where you are getting this, again read Romans 7.

That broken covenant relationship is why we require salvation. The first federal head became a covenant-breaker (as are all those in Adam), while the last federal head became a covenant-keeper (as are all those in Christ).

P.S. This view would also explain how Adam and Eve could understand disobedience as wrong.

So, you're suggesting all those born and who lived before Adams sin, we sinless?

This is a whole different subject which you would need to prove first.