Why did Adam sin?

So Adam wasn’t required to sin, and somehow, in some way, what God has ordained would have occurred, it just wouldn’t have been Adam’s sin that triggered it.

I think this is the seminal point of the problem. You have God omniscient and omnipotent (sovereign) over the big idea but not the details. Anybody could have acted out God’s event; the uncertainty has to mean nobody might have acted out the event. This mitigates against God’s sovereignty in decreeing the big event in the first place if man is truly free. On the other hand, if God could decree someone would act according to His plan, how is that different from decreeing which someone would be the actor?

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

IMO, God foreknew that if He gave humanity a choice, they’d choose to sin. But to be consistent with this verse, I feel I must assume that Adam had the choice not to sin- not to be the one by whom sin entered the world. So sin had to enter the world, but it didn’t have to be Adam. And God knew who it would be if it hadn’t been Adam. See post #33 for more of my speculations as to how this might work.

I look at this life as my only opportunity to serve God and do right of my own free will. In eternity, I don’t believe we are going to have that choice. The new heaven and new earth will be righteous by default (2Pet. 3:13) and therein lies an important contrast with the world we have now that I think we have to consider if we are going to try to answer this question in a manner consistent with the whole of Scripture.

[James K] Is God responsible for Adam sinning in any way?

No. James 1:13

Two authors that helped shaped my thoughts on this question and the correlated topic of free-will were Luther, specifically Bondage of the Will, and A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence and The Sovereignty of God. To boil their thoughts down, man has a will, but it is not free. Separate from the will is their choice. This choice is determined by their will. And choice is what men are held accountable for. So, no matter what our will is in bondage to, we are still accountable for our choice. Again, that was a nutshell, and left out a lot of their arguments, especially Luther’s which attacks very strongly the opposing view or Erasmus.

If you are to read any of those books, I would just state that Luther tends to make an argument and then restate it multiple times in different ways. There were many occasions I thought I was re-reading the same page only to find out it was just the x6 restatement. And with Pink, you cannot skip ahead through his books since he builds most of his case upon itself. So, you will probably disagree with him if you jump into the middle or don’t fully grasp what he says prior. This also makes it hard to quote him, unless you quote everything prior to the quote you want. One thing I like about Pink is he guesses the questions you have against his statements and then seeks to answer them with scripture.

[James K] If God was sovereign over sin, how was he not responsible that it happened?

http://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_main.cfm] Canons Of Dordt

http://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_1stpoint.cfm] 1st Point

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).

http://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_3rd4thpoints.cfm] 3rd & 4th Points

Article 3: Total Inability

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

Article 9: Human Responsibility for Rejecting the Gospel

The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life’s cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).

I very much like the Canons of Dordt, but it’s only honest to observe that on this point they do nothing whatever to help explain how what it asserts is consistent; it just asserts what is the case and what is not the case. It doesn’t answer any questions about how anything is the case.

[JohnBrian] [ http://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_3rd4thpoints.cfm] 3rd & 4th Points

Article 3: Total Inability

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

Article 9: Human Responsibility for Rejecting the Gospel

The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life’s cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).

So is the point in Article 9 that people are responsible because they CAN respond to the “calling” of God through the Gospel but some of them fail to do so? Is this “calling” from Article 9 the same as regeneration, or is it something that God does for dead people prior to their regeneration? What are the “various gifts” that God bestows on spiritually dead people? What does “entertain the Word” actually mean? Does it just mean to have an intellectual understanding of the Gospel? What does “take it to heart” mean for an unsaved person? Does that mean the same as “conviction”? Can a spiritually dead person, who is “neither willing nor able to return to God,” really be held responsible for rejecting a “calling” and “conviction” if they have not been regenerated?

Kevin, that is a lot of questions. And some are questions that I don’t think effectively deal with the topic. For example:

Can a spiritually dead person, who is “neither willing nor able to return to God,” really be held responsible for rejecting a “calling” and “conviction” if they have not been regenerated?

This questions jumps ahead of the premise, and instead seeks to disprove the premise by not believing the conclusion. Instead you should ask if this part of article 3 is correct, ‘neither willing nor able to return to God.’ Then ask who God holds responsible for sin? And the Calvinist conclusion is, man apart from God cannot turn to God, and God holds men responsible for their sin. How that happens can be debated, but both points would still have to remain true. I believe Luther and Pink both add choice into the picture (something most do not), like I said earlier. So, man’s will is in bondage, and this will determines choice, and they are still the active agent in their choice to reject the gospel.

So if I can ask a question, is ‘neither willing nor able to return to God’ biblical? And who does God hold responsible for sin?

[Daniel] Kevin, that is a lot of questions.

Inquiring minds want to know. :-)

And some are questions that I don’t think effectively deal with the topic.

I was only asking my questions due to JohnBrian posting some Articles from the Canons of Dordt, which he felt dealt with the topic.

For example:

Can a spiritually dead person, who is “neither willing nor able to return to God,” really be held responsible for rejecting a “calling” and “conviction” if they have not been regenerated?

This questions jumps ahead of the premise, and instead seeks to disprove the premise by not believing the conclusion.

Huh? I was just asking for some semantic clarification of Article 9 as it related to Article 3. I didn’t think I was jumping or disproving or not believing anything.

Instead you should ask if this part of article 3 is correct, ‘neither willing nor able to return to God.’

Hey, that’s a fine question as well. I see you’ve asked it at the end of your post.

Then ask who God holds responsible for sin? And the Calvinist conclusion is, man apart from God cannot turn to God, and God holds men responsible for their sin. How that happens can be debated, but both points would still have to remain true.

But doesn’t the first point answer the question that you told me to ask from article 3? Are you admitting that that point has to be true? I’m just wondering if the semantic way that the Canons of Dordt phrases the issue have to be true, since it seems to me that there is an inconsistency there.

[James K] John, you may feel that posting Dort answered my question but it didn’t. It didn’t address causality, only blame. Let me put it another way: did God want Adam to sin?

God wanted some end that would come through Adam’s sinning, and on that basis, allowed the sin. Obviously God has the raw power to prevent sin. It’s worth pointing out that the most hard-core Augustinian and the loosest open theist agree on this point - that sin is in the world to serve some greater purpose. For the Libertarian, that greater purpose is human free will, which apparently has an incredible value. For the Augustinian, that purpose is ultimately inscrutable, but connected to the glorification of Christ as Savior of the elect.

Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

[James K] Charlie, are you arguing that God wanted sin according to his “secret will”?

I’m making the rather obvious point that sin happens. The other rather obvious point is that God could easily prevent sin, the simplest way being to not create rational creatures or to create them with immutable wills. Is any orthodox Christian denying those two points?

So, since God does not prevent sin, there must be some reason that he does not do so. Everyone from an Augustinian to a Pelagian has to acknowledge this, leaving us all with some variation of the greater good scenario. If that makes God unjust, that’s not just a problem for Augustinians, but for all Christians.

God knew, fully ahead of time, that Adam would sin of his own free will. As Dave Burgaraff said once, God gave man a free will, and he exercised it.

The choice between God knew, therefore God is responsible or God didn’t know and therefore God isn’t responsible is a false dichotomy that leads to heresy either way.

I have no horse in this race, but it is worth noting, Charlie, that it’s not fair to say that all Christians hold to some form of a greater good theodicy. You may think they all should, but that they all don’t is a matter of fact. Just by way of an example in conservative circles. Bruce Little at Southern rejects such theodicies (one can read some interviews with him at the blog of the Evangelical Philosophy Society).

All a Christian who is orthodox is committed to is the proposition that the existence of evil does not compromise God’s character. Being orthodox does not require one to say anything more than that, though most people who think about this issue do say more.

Kevin, sorry for misunderstanding your intentions.

James, what does free will mean? People like to throw it around without actually defining it and saying what it can do?

[Joseph] I have no horse in this race, but it is worth noting, Charlie, that it’s not fair to say that all Christians hold to some form of a greater good theodicy. You may think they all should, but that they all don’t is a matter of fact. Just by way of an example in conservative circles. Bruce Little at Southern rejects such theodicies (one can read some interviews with him at the blog of the Evangelical Philosophy Society).

All a Christian who is orthodox is committed to is the proposition that the existence of evil does not compromise God’s character. Being orthodox does not require one to say anything more than that, though most people who think about this issue do say more.

That’s true, Joseph. The first two points I mentioned I think all orthodox Christians agree on. From there, I don’t see how they avoid some fashion of the greater good idea (since that clearly seems to be God’s stance toward specific sins mentioned in the Bible), but many do refuse to draw that conclusion.

Let me limit myself then to unmasking the hypocrisy of popular libertarianism. Most libertarians (almost all the ones I know), when arguing against one form of the greater good theodicy, merely substitute their own. If you ask them why God does not immediately snuff out sin, or did not create only people who would not sin, they will appeal to the intrinsic value of free choice. In other words, sin is the price God pays for creating creatures with free will, which is now revealed as the greater good in the libertarian scheme. At that point, the libertarian’s supposed argument - that a greater good theodicy is inadequate - falters. Then it’s simply a matter of which greater good is more scriptural and satisfying.

[Joseph in post 64] I very much like the Canons of Dordt, but it’s only honest to observe that… It doesn’t answer any questions about how anything is the case.

[James K in post 73] If Adam sinning was part of God’s “secret will” then Adam sinned because ultimately God desired it. Did he really do it of his own free will if God wanted it to happen?

[James K in post 68] John, you may feel that posting Dort answered my question but it didn’t. It didn’t address causality, only blame.

Sorry, I realize they don’t explain the “how,” or “causality.” I posted them to show that the Canons do address the issue of God NOT being responsible for man’s sin, and they had not been referenced in the thread.

[Kevin Miller in post 65] So is the point in Article 9 that people are responsible because they CAN respond to the “calling” of God through the Gospel but some of them fail to do so?

Both synergism and monergism affirm that man IS responsible. But here is the difference: synergism insists that responsibility requires ability (God can only require what man in his natural state is able to do), while monergism denies that requirement. Hyper-Calvinists go the other way - recognizing that man has no ability, they then affirm that he has no responsibility.

Maybe this will help:

Mon: responsibility - no ability

Syn: responsibility - ability

H/C: no ability - no responsibility

These form presuppositions that then are imposed on the Scripture , as in John 3:16 (my “Mon vs Syn - Part 2” article will cover this):

The synergist, presupposing ability, sees the phrase “whoever believes” and insists that all-men-without-exception are capable. while the monergist insists that the verse does not address capability, it only affirms that the believing-ones are guaranteed life.

[Kevin Miller in post 65] Is this “calling” from Article 9 the same as regeneration,

No, this is what is referred to as the “general call.” Preaching is the “call” - that is why monergists make such a big deal about expository preaching. BUT, man in his natural state is going to ALWAYS ultimately reject the call (thus the Matt 13 passage). There has to be a change in the heart of man that gives him the ability to respond in faith - the “good ground” of Matt 13:8.

Sproul in his http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html Regeneration Precedes Faith article contrasts “regenerating grace” with “prevenient grace.”

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we cannot. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

p.s. Maybe Calvinists should use the phrase “regenerating grace” instead of “regeneration” as the synergistic dislike for our regeneration-precedes-faith view is most often based on the notion that regeneration is synonymous with “salvation,” with the implication that we believe salvation precedes faith!

[Kevin Miller in post 65] Can a spiritually dead person, who is “neither willing nor able to return to God,” really be held responsible for rejecting a “calling” and “conviction” if they have not been regenerated?

Yes! In our natural state we are not neutral about God - we hate and despise Him and continually shake our fists at Him and say “you are not the boss of me!” We are http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html sinners in the hands of an angry God !

I came across the following discussion over the weekend.

Matthew Fenn http://ponderingchrist.blogspot.com/2010/11/predestination-and-voluntar… in a blog post wrote:

God’s sovereign will flows concurrently with our free choices in such a way that our free choices always result in the carrying out of God’s will (by ‘free choices’ I mean that our choices are not coerced by outside influences).

Does God predestine everything or is man free? My answer is, “YES”.

Steven Berg http://steveberg.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/responsetomattfenn20101121/ responded on his own blog :

…it’s obvious that GOD is the SOURCE/AUTHOR of that individual’s choice, whether it’s considered “sinful” or not. So, in what sense is God not the Ultimate source of Hitler’s choices or Osama bin Laden’s?

Fenn http://ponderingchrist.blogspot.com/2010/11/response-to-steven-berg.html responded to Berg’s response :

God’s providence and secondary causes are not in conflict but in concord. Natural events cause other natural events to happen, but not without God’s will concurring. God directs the wills and hearts of men, but not without their voluntary concurrence.

In other words, you get universal divine governance, providence over each particular event, providence even over the decisions of human beings – and you get it all without sacrificing secondary causes or making God the author of evil.

Thank you John. This is what I was trying to say at the outset, but not very successfully.