Free Reformed Church of Calgary discussion
Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3
>
Chapter 1: The Origin of Sin (weeks 1-4)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Defenders of this theory sometimes appeal to the Pauline doctrine of "the flesh" to support their case. But, we must first recognize that the word "flesh" (בשׂר and σαρξ), as its used in Scripture, can refer to several different things: (1) it can refer to the physical body (1 Cor. 15:39), and is sometimes used in contrast to the spirit, mind, and heart (Rom. 2:28; 2 Cor. 7:5; Col. 2:5); (2) it can also refer to the general weakness of humanity (Gen. 6:3; 18:27; Job 4:17–19; 15:14–15; 25:4–6; Pss. 78:39; 103:14; Isa. 40:6; Jer. 17:5; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16); and (3) finally it can also refer to the sinful life of humans (Rom. 3:7; 7:14; 8:3f.; 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 10:2–3) (p. 54).
Some people have taken the last meaning and assumed that the "flesh" is the source and origin of sin. Opposing this view, we must recognize that there are several reasons why the physical body is not inherently sinful. First, "Paul clearly traces sin to the temptation of the serpent and the transgression by Adam (Rom. 5:12; 2 Cor. 11:3)" rather than to the body (p. 53). Second, Paul enumerates a list of sins which include spiritual sins (which aren't committed by the body) such as idolatry, strife, anger, and heresy (Gal. 5:19f). Third, "Paul recognizes Christ, though born of a woman (Gal. 4:4) and of Jewish stock “according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:5), as being without any sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and calls the body a temple of God, claiming all its members for the service of righteousness (Rom. 6:13, 19; 12:1; 1 Cor. 6:13–20)" (p. 55). "Finally, Paul teaches a resurrection of dead bodies (1 Cor. 15), and in principle opposes asceticism (Col. 2:16; 1 Thess. 4:4)" (p. 55). Therefore, the "Pauline use of the word 'flesh' becomes clear to us when we abandon the familiar Greek contrast between the material and the immaterial and replace it with the biblical contrast between the earthly and the heavenly" (p. 55). "While the sensual nature of humans is not itself sin, nor the source or principle of sin, it is its dwelling place (Rom. 7:17–18) and the instrument of its dominion over us (Rom. 6:12)" (p. 55). In other words, our physical bodies are not inherently sinful, but sinful temptations arise from within our bodies—because it is with our bodies that we are connected with the rest of the world (both physically and spiritually).
10. Sin is Not "A Necessary Evil": "The question of the origin of evil, second to that of existence itself, is the greatest enigma of life" (p. 53). We need to recognize that "a power as appalling as sin cannot have originated accidentally, outside God’s will and counsel" (p. 56). Why would God allow the existence of sin? We can rightly answer that God does everything for his own glory according to the counsel of his own will (cf. Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q&A 7).
But how is God glorified by the existence of sin? Immanuel Kant suggested, "All activity seems also to presuppose some hindrance. A pigeon might imagine it could fly better in a vacuum, but precisely the resistance of the air is what enables it to fly. Similarly, human beings may think they could live better without sin, but in fact sin is necessary for their moral perfection" (p. 56). Those that hold to this view sometimes appeal to certain passages of Scripture that seem to speak to the necessity of sins and disaster (Matt. 18:7; Luke 24:26; John 9:3; 1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Tim. 2:20) (p. 57). Sin is thus "made subservient by God Almighty to the revelation of his attributes and the honor of his name" (p. 57). Although appealing, this theory cannot be accepted. First, this theory robs sin of its ethical characters (i.e., sin ceases to be a horrific violation of God's law). Second, this theory makes sin eternal and invincible. It becomes a necessity of existence. "Not only is the good necessary to evil, but, conversely, evil is necessary to the good… without [evil] even the good cannot exist" (p. 57). Finally, this view erroneously makes God the author of sin, and gives way for humans to "justify themselves and to charge God with injustice" (p. 59).
11. God is Not the Author of Sin: "Sin may be whatever it is, but one thing is certain: God is the Righteous and Holy One who prohibits it in his law, witnesses against it in the human conscience, and visits it with punishments and judgments. Sin is not rational, nor is it lawful; it is lawlessness (ἀνομια); it is not necessary to the existence of creatures, much less to the existence of God. The good is necessary even for evil to exist, but the good does not need evil, nor does holiness need sin, nor truth falsehood, nor God Satan. If sin, nevertheless, frequently serves to bring the good to fuller disclosure and to glorify God’s attributes, this occurs—against sin’s intent, not with its consent and cooperation—by the wisdom and omnipotence of God… sin is forced to serve the honor of God and the coming of his kingdom. Thus evil frequently pays tribute to the good… But all this is attributable, not to sin, but to the almighty power of God, who is able to bring good out of evil, light out of darkness, and life out of death" (p. 58).
12. God is in Control: Although God is not the author of sin, still "his counsel and government also extend to sin" (p. 59; recall volume 2, chapter 14, point #12). "God is not the author of sin, yet it does not lie outside his knowledge, his will, and his power" (p. 59).
What is God's relation to sin? The view of Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Remonstrants, and Lutherans is that "though sin does not lie outside God’s knowledge, it does lie outside his will… Though he knew of sin before it occurred, God did not will it. He only permitted it and did not prevent it" (p. 59). In this, God's "permission" is a negative act; it is an unwillingness to prevent sin. However, "Augustine already saw that 'permission' could not be merely negative but had to be an act of God’s will… God does everything he wills; he does not will anything without doing it, but what he wills he does, and what happens does not ever happen apart from his will. 'In a wondrous, indescribable way even that which is done against His will is not done without His will…nor would He in His goodness permit evil unless in His omnipotence He could bring good even out of evil'" (p. 60).
Appealing to Scripture (e.g., Exod. 7:3; 2 Sam. 16:10; 24:1; Mal. 1:3; Luke 2:34; Rom. 9:17–18; 2 Thess. 2:11; etc.), the Reformed agreed with Augustine. To them, permission "was no pure negation, no mere cessation of volition… but a positive act of God, an efficacious will" (p. 61). The Reformed argued that the word "permission" (as used by the Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Remonstrants, and Lutherans) was an unhelpful term that did not explain the origin of sin at all, "and in fact withdraws the whole reality of sin from the context of God’s providential government. After all, one who can prevent an evil but, while quietly looking on, lets it happen is as guilty as one who commits that evil" (p. 62). "Furthermore, even if God merely allowed sin to occur, there has to be a reason why he did not want to prevent it. That reason cannot be a lack of knowledge or power; hence it has to lie in his will… He willed to permit it" (p. 62).
13. The Formal and Material Causes of Sin: As we discussed in volume 2, chapter 14, point #11, there are formal and material causes of sin. "For if both Scripture and Christian thought forbade placing sin completely or partly outside the will and providence of God, a solution could only be attempted by making a distinction in the manner of God’s government over the good and over the evil. And indeed, though in a sense it can be said that God willed sin, that is, he willed that there would be sin, he willed evil in a totally different sense than good. He takes delight in the good but hates evil with divine hatred" (p. 62).
As an illustrative example, we can examine the nature of faith: "Faith is a gift. God causes people to believe; still, formally speaking, it is not God who believes, but the human being. This applies even more intensely to the sinful deed. Materially, certainly, this must be attributed to God, but formally it remains the responsibility of human beings. When a murderer kills somebody, all the planning ability and the power he needs for that purpose come from God, but the act, from a formal point of view, is his, not God’s. Indeed, the fact of homicide taken by itself is not yet a sin, for the same thing frequently occurs in war and on the scaffold. What makes homicide a sin is not the matter, the substrate, but the form, that is, the depravity, the lawlessness (ἀνομια) of the deed; not the substance but the accident in the act" (p. 62).
God governs the good in a different way than evil. "In the case of the good, God’s providence must be understood as God himself by his Spirit working in the subject and positively enabling this subject to do good. In the case of sin, it may not be pictured that way. Sin is lawlessness, deformity, and does not have God as its efficient cause, but at most as its deficient cause. Light cannot of itself produce darkness; the darkness only arises when the light is withdrawn. God, therefore, is at most the negative or incidental cause of sin; its real and positive cause is located in human beings" (p. 63). "It was God’s will that Shimei cursed David, that Satan tested Job, that Jews and Gentiles wanted to give up God’s holy servant Jesus to death—still in all these iniquities, human creatures are guilty and God is innocent" (p. 64).
Mod
"For even when [God] wants there to be evil, he only wants it in a way that is holy: though using it, he never commits it. And for that reason, he has also allowed sin in his creation. He would not have tolerated it had he not been able to govern it in an absolute holy and sovereign manner. He would not have put up with it if he were not God, the Holy and Omnipotent One. But being God, he did not fear its existence and its power. He willed it so that in it and against it he might bring to light his divine attributes… So, both in its origin and its development, God always exercises his rule over sin… For sin is of such a nature that it destroys itself by the very freedom granted it; it dies of its own diseases; it dooms itself to death" (pp. 64-65). God renders sin powerless at the cross (Col. 2:15).
Evil is not good, but the existence of evil is worked out for good. "Because he knew he was absolutely able to control sin, 'he deemed it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist at all.' He thinks and guides evil for good and makes it subservient to his glory… But it is true that also and even especially in God’s government over sin his attributes are splendidly displayed. The riches of God’s grace, the depth of his compassion, the unchanging nature of his faithfulness, the inviolable character of his justice, the glory of his wisdom and power have shone out all the more brilliantly as a result of sin… And therefore the sin that is in the world, so far from being able to rob us of our faith in God, his love, and his power, rather confirms and strengthens us in that faith" (p. 65). Sin gives way to something better!
15. Adam Sinned, Though Created Righteous: "How can sin ever be explained in terms of the will of a being created after God’s image in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness?" (p. 66). First, we need to recognize that "God so created angels and humans that they could sin and fall… Angels and humans, accordingly, received the grace by which they could stand, not the grace by which they would stand in perpetuity. They did not yet possess the highest, inadmissible freedom, that is, the freedom of no longer being able to want to sin. The image of God in humanity was therefore still limited; it had not developed in all its fullness; it still had its limit in the possibility of sinning (pp. 66-67). In other words, they were made mutably upright (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, 9.2); "They were good, but changeably so" (p. 67). "God alone is fully existent in all his attributes and therefore immutable. Creatures, however… can… degenerate… What has been formed can be deformed and hence again be reformed… A creature naturally incapable of sin, therefore, is a contradiction" (p. 67).
16. The First Sin: Scripture indicates that Adam's fall plunged mankind into ruin. Yet, sin already existed before man's fall in the Garden of Eden. "It is certain that sin did not first start on earth but in heaven, at the feet of God’s throne, in his immediate presence and that the fall of angels took place before that of humankind" (p. 36). It appears that the sin that caused the fall of the angels and the fall of man was rooted in a desire to be like God. It has been suggested that, "in the case of both angels and humans, the imagination was the faulty that made the violation of the commandment appear as the road to equality with God" (p. 67). It seems that "temptation is first of all and primarily directed toward the imagination and thereby seeks to affect desire and the will… 'At first it is a mere thought confronting the mind; then imagination paints it in stronger colours; only after that do we take pleasure in it, and the will makes a false move, and we give our assent.' The mind entertains the idea of sin, the imagination beautifies and converts it into a fascinating ideal, desire reaches out to it, and the will goes ahead and does it" (p. 67). Augustine elaborates that it is the personal experience of everyone who sins that the same process that is described in Gen. 3 (also James 1:13-15) is repeated again (p. 67). So, it appears that lies (a distortion of reality) underlies every sin. "Sin started with lying (John 8:44); it is based on illusion, an untrue picture, an imagined good that was not good. In its origin, therefore, it was a folly and an absurdity" (p. 69).
17. Sin in Humans: From what we do know, it appears that humans and angels are enticed by sin in different ways (p. 68). "Human beings are not pure spirit but from the earth, people of 'dust,' and become living souls (1 Cor. 15:45ff.), and are therefore connected with the cosmos and always have bodies as their instrument and as organs of their activity (Rom. 6:13; 8:13). This sensual nature gives to sin, as it characterizes our humanity, a character distinct from that of the angels, both in origin and in essence. Temptations come to us from without via 'the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride in riches' (1 John 2:16). It is the sensual nature of human beings that makes their sin such that they make a god of their belly, that they think the things that are below, that they are self-seeking and live for themselves, and honor the creature more than the Creator (Rom. 1:21ff.; Phil. 2:4, 21; 3:19; Col. 3:2; etc.)" (p. 55). Sin is carnally-driven in humans. "Scripture… closely links the sensual nature of a human being and sin" (p. 68). Even before sin entered the human race, in the original state of integrity, "despite the knowledge and righteousness [Adam] possessed, [he] was susceptible to seduction and temptation… [consequently] all subsequent sins have only and consistently highlighted our human nature as temptable, weak, and unreliable beings" (p. 68).
18. Sin in Angels: In contrast to humans, it appears that pride was most likely the principle of the angelic fall (as suggested by 1 Tim. 3:6 and 2 Pet. 2:4). It was a desire to be equal to God in power and dominion. "Paul warns the neophyte (1 Tim. 3:6) against being puffed up that he may not fall into the condemnation of the devil, that is, fall into the same condemnation that has struck the devil. And Jude (v. 6) speaks of “the angels that did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling,” that is, of angels who did not hold onto their principle, origin, or even rule, and left the dwelling place assigned to them. Clearly implied here is that many angels were not content with the state in which God had placed them. Pride took possession of them to make them strive for another and higher position" (p. 35). "The angels were not, like humans, led astray. Temptation did not come to them from without. They fell by their own agency. Jesus says that the devil speaks 'according to his own nature' [John 8:44] when he lies. He became discontented with his status and power on his own, that is, by his own thinking; he produced the lie from within himself and projected it as a realm, a system, over against the truth of God" (p. 68).
"But in the case of the first human, it was not so. He was not a pure spirit… He could not think as loftily and elevate himself as boldly: he was from the earth, a man of dust… weaker and more fragile" (p. 68). For this reason, "Satan came to him from without, adapted himself to his nature as it were, aroused in him the lust of the eyes, the craving of the flesh, and the pride of life, and so brought about his fall. The origin and essence of sin has a very different character in the case of humanity than in that of the angels" (p. 68).
19. The Timing of the Fall: The precise timing of the fall is unknown. "The time of the fall of the angels is nowhere reported. With a view to the phrase 'from the beginning' (ἀπʼ ἀρχης, John 8:44), many theologians judged that the angels—certainly not at the very moment of their creation but then surely immediately after—by their first act of volition were either confirmed in the good or had fallen into sin. Others assumed that a short period elapsed after their creation and that their fall occurred either still before the creation of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1), or within the period of the six creation days, or (with a view to Gen. 1:31) only after the completion of the work of creation as a whole" (pp. 73-74).
"Equally little can be said with certainty about [the time of] the fall of humanity. Some theologians speak of years after creation; others… think that the fall of humanity occurred only a few days after, or even on the same day as, its creation. These time stipulations, for that matter, are of little importance. What is important is that, according to Scripture, the fall is essentially distinct from the creation itself… [Sin] does not belong to the essential being of the creation… but [originated from] disobedience and transgression… [it] entered the creation unlawfully, and [does] not belong there… [But] its existence is no accident. With a view to the counsel of God that incorporated it and assigned a place to it" (p. 74).
Side note #1: My personal belief is that Adam sinned the same day he was created. This is a popular opinion among many of the Puritans. Thomas Boston, for example, lists six reasons why Adam likely sinned on the same day he was created: "1. Because of the devil's envy, who, it is likely, could not long endure to see a man in a happy state. 2. If man had stood more days, the blessing of marriage would have taken place, Adam would have known his wife, and begot a child without original sin. 3. The Sabbath was not so much appointed for meditating on the works of creation, as on the work of redemption. 4. It appears from the words of the serpent, and of the woman, that she had not yet tasted any fruit. 5. When the Holy Ghost speaks of the sixth day (Gen. 1), and of the day of the fall, it is with HE emphatic. (Compare Genesis 1 ult. and 3:8). 6. He fell so soon, that the work of redemption might be more illustrious, since man could not stand one day without the Mediator's help" (Fisher, Edward, and Thomas Boston. The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2009. p. 67).
Mod
Why is this important? Thomas Watson lists two reasons. "Use one: From Adam's sudden fall learn the weakness of human nature. Adam, in a state of integrity, quickly made a defection from God, he soon lost the robe of innocence and the glory of Paradise. If our nature was thus weak when it was at the best, what is it now when it is at the worst? If Adam did not stand when he was perfectly righteous, how unable are we to stand when sin has cut the lock of our original righteousness! If purified nature did not stand, how shall corrupt nature? If Adam, in a few hours, sinned himself out of Paradise, how quickly would we sin ourselves into hell, if we were not kept by a greater power than our own! But God puts underneath his everlasting arms. Deut 33:37. Use two: From Adam's sudden fall, learn how sad it is for a man to be left to himself. Adam being left to himself, fell. Oh then, what will become of us, how soon fall, if God should leave us to ourselves! A man without God's grace, left to himself, is like a ship in a storm, without pilot or anchor, and is ready to dash upon every rock. Make this prayer to God, 'Lord, do not leave me to myself. If Adam fell so soon who had strength, how soon shall I fall who have no strength!' Oh! urge God with his hand and seal. 'My strength shall be made perfect in weakness.' 2 Cor 12:2" (Watson, Thomas. A Body of Divinity: Contained in Sermons upon the Westminster Assembly's Catechism. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. p. 138).
Side note #2: Concerning the fall of angels, I personally don't think it is possible to be confident on the timing of the event. But, in general terms, Francis Turretin provides the following useful observations: "To no purpose also is it inquired concerning the time of their fall: whether they stood for a long time in integrity; or whether they fell at the beginning of creation (as some of the Scholastics think). Scripture is silent on that point. In general, only this is evident—their fall preceded the fall of man. That some interval occurred between the creation of angels, the work of God and their defection (the action of demons) is asserted with reason… Nor is it very likely that they fell before the work of creation was finished because then all God had created was still very good (Gen. 1:31)" (Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology / Volume 1. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 1992. pp. 601-602; IX, 5.II). So, the fall of angels likely happened after the work of creation was completed, but before the fall of man (which likely occurred on the sixth day). It is plausible that the fall of angels and the fall of man both occurred on the same day.
Mod
I sure enjoyed reading the summary notes on the negative but realistic subject of sin. As you said, "It is a somber topic that we should all study with great respect and seriousness." Ultimately true and growing awareness of our sins and sinfulness is so related to true and never-ending awe and worship for the only Savior from sin Whom God in infinite love has given in the fulness of time. Blessed be God when by His Spirit and Word He opens our understanding to these Christian gospel truths guiding us in true repentance, faith and devotion before the LORD!
The side notes are appreciated too.
Thank you so much for your diligent and faithful summaries and overall leadership with the reading group. Be assured it is much appreciated! pho
Mod
"The doctrine of total human moral depravity is a hard one and naturally evokes aversion and even incomprehension....We must never forget that as we are judged and condemned by God's standard, he at the same time offers us his full love, mercy, and forgiveness in Christ. A lesser judgment on us would require a lesser grace and thus diminish the love of God to us." pho
Mod
Mod
After the Fall, it appears that God clothed Adam and Eve with garments of animal skins, and that the sacrifice was likely made the very same day as the Fall itself.
In reflection: "It is said concerning Christ, 'That they sought to take him, yet no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come' (John 7:3); but after that when the time of his suffering was at hand, he himself said, 'The hour is come' (John 12:23); which day is expressly set down by the Evangelist Mark to be the sixth day, and ninth hour of that day, when 'Christ, through the eternal Spirit, offered up himself without spot to God' (Mark 15:34, 42). Now, if you compare this with Exodus 12:6, you shall find that the paschal lamb, a most lively type of Christ, was offered the very same day and hour, even the sixth day, and ninth hour of that day, which was at three of the clock in the afternoon: and the Scripture testifies, that Adam was created the very same sixth day; and gives us ground to think that he sinned the same day. And do not the before alleged Scriptures afford us warrant to believe that it was the very same hour of that day (Gen. 1:26); when Christ entered mystically and typically upon the work of redemption, in being offered as a sacrifice for Adam's sin? And surely we may suppose, that the covenant (as you heard) being broken between God and Adam, justice would not have admitted of one hour's respite, before it had proceeded to execution, to the destruction both of Adam and the whole creation, had not Christ, at that very time, stood as the ram (or rather the lamb) in the bush, and stepped in to perform the work of the covenant. And hence I conceive it is, that Saint John calls him the 'Lamb slain' from the beginning of the world (Rev. 13:8). For as the first state of creation was confirmed by the covenant which God made with man, and all creatures were to be upheld by means of observing the law and condition of that covenant; so that covenant being broken by man, the world should have come to ruin, had it not been, as it were, created anew, and upheld by the covenant of grace in Christ" (Fisher, Edward, and Thomas Boston. The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2009. p. 71).
The summary of the idea is this:
1. There appears to be correspondence between the work of redemption and the fall of mankind.
2. After the Fall, if Adam and Eve were not immediately covered by the work of redemption (signified by the sacrifice of an animal and covering with garments of skin), they would have immediately perished.
3. All acts of redemption in the Old Testament typologically point towards Christ. In a typological sense, it was Christ that was the sacrifice from the beginning.
4. The Passover took place on the 14th of Nisan (the "day of Preparation," which is Friday [i.e. the sixth day]) in the evening, which (as per John Gill's commentary), is "about the nineth hour of the day, according to the Jewish computation, and, with us, about three o'clock in the afternoon [according to our modern clocks], about which time the passover used to be killed." In other words, the Passover, which is typological of Christ's sacrifice, occurred on the sixth day at 3 p.m.
5. The Apostle John speaks of Christ as being the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world. Certainly, the Lamb imagery refers to the Passover. But it may also be an allusion to the first sacrifice that was made in the garden of Eden to clothe Adam and Eve, as this sacrifice was made at the foundation of the world.
6. Jesus Christ fulfilled all the Old Testament types when he was crucified. This occurred on the 14th of Nisan (the "day of Preparation" [cf. Mark 15:42], which is Friday [i.e. the sixth day]) at the ninth hour (cf. Mark 15:34) which corresponds to 3 p.m.
7. Therefore, this suggests (in addition to the comments above by Thomas Boston, Thomas Watson, and Edward Fisher) that the Fall likely took place on the sixth day of creation—and probably in the afternoon of that day.
Mod
Thanks for passing it on.
pho
Mod
1. The Original State of Creation Was Good: "When God had completed the work of creation, he looked down with delight on the work of his hands, for it was all very good (Gen. 1:31)… But that world did not long continue to exist in its original goodness. It had scarcely been created before sin crept into it… Almost at the same moment creatures came, pure and splendid, from the hand of their Maker, they were deprived of all their luster, and stood, corrupted and impure… Sin ruined the entire creation" (p. 28).
2. Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The story of the fall centres around Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is undoubtedly so named because humans, by eating of it, would acquire a knowledge of good and evil such as they had not had until then, one that was forbidden to them and denied to them. The question, however, is what that knowledge of good and evil amounts to" (pp. 30-31). There are three potential explanations:
Theory #1: "The usual explanation is that, by eating of the tree, humans would gain empirical [i.e., experiential] knowledge of good and evil" (p. 31). Before the fall, neither Adam nor Eve had experienced evil. Only upon eating of the tree would they would gain this personal knowledge of sin. However, the problem with this theory is that mankind actually became like God in his knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:22); and God has no empirical knowledge of evil.
Theory #2: Some people have proposed that mankind acquiring the knowledge of good and evil is actually a description of the human race evolving from an animal state to self-consciousness and reason. The problem with this view is that it assumes "that God created humanity in a state of childlike, even animal, innocence, and planned to keep it in that state. However, knowledge… had already been given to mankind at the time of its creation, as is evident from the creation in God’s image, the naming of the animals, and the reception and understanding of the probationary command. The knowledge that humanity acquired by the fall was a very different kind of knowledge… Genesis 3 does not tell the story of a 'giant step of progress' but of a human fall" (p. 31).
Theory #3: Others have suggested that the knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden to humans refers to wisdom. It is "the achievement of a mature intellect ([Gen.] 3:6), the ability to distinguish between the useful and the harmful (Deut. 1:39; 2 Sam. 19:35–36; Isa. 7:16; Jonah 4:11)… In other words, this refers to wisdom, to the skills of controlling the world… [making] humans independent of God and like God" (p. 32). However, theory #3 faces the same problems as theory #2. It assumes that the fall was actually progress. It incorrectly suggests that the wisdom that mankind acquires which he then uses to subdue creation was initially forbidden by God. After all, in the creational mandate, God instructed Adam "to exercise dominion over the earth (cf. 9:1–2)… to till and keep the Garden of Eden and to name the animals (cf. 3:23)… [and the] Old Testament generally accords such high status to wisdom that there can be no question of condemnation" (p. 32).
* Theory #4: This last theory is the most faithful to Scripture. "In Genesis 3, the issue is not primarily the content of the knowledge that humans would appropriate by disobedience but the manner in which they would obtain it… By violating the command of God and eating of the tree, they would make themselves like God in the sense that they would position themselves outside and above the law and, like God, determine and judge for themselves what good and evil was. The knowledge of good and evil is not the knowledge of the useful and the harmful, of the world and how to control it, but (as in 2 Sam. 19:36; Isa. 7:16) the right and capacity to distinguish good and evil on one’s own" (p. 33). Unfortunately, this "did not lead and cannot lead to true happiness… But humanity voluntarily and deliberately opted for its own way, thereby failing the test" (p. 33).
3. The Serpent's Temptation: "Humanity had probably existed in the state of innocence only for a short while when it was tempted and toppled from without by a serpent that was more crafty (עָרוּם; LXX φρονιμος; prudens; cf. Matt. 10:16; 2 Cor. 11:3) than any other wild animal… [the serpent] tried to create doubt in the heart of the woman about the commandment of God… [then] sowing unbelief and pride" (p. 33). It promised that "If humans will eat of the tree, they will, instead of dying, become like God… The serpent’s assurance and the high expectation it raised prompted the woman to look at the tree… The desire of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life [cf. 1 John 2:16] made the temptation irresistible… she took of the fruit, ate it, and gave some to her husband, and he ate" (pp. 33-34). Thus the fall occurred.
4. The Grand Implications of the Fall: To many people, at least based on first impressions, the events of the fall may appear almost trivial. "Only gradually, as revelation progressively unfolds, does the depth of the darkness come out. Though seemingly innocent in the beginning, sin in its basic nature and power only becomes known in the course of history. At the start the deviation from the right road is small and scarcely perceptible, but when continued, it leads into entirely the wrong direction and to a completely opposite outcome" (p. 35).
5. The Fall Was Real History With Real Consequences: "The fall of humankind was such a serious and appalling fact that the consequences of it continue to have their effect in the history of the human race to the present" (p. 37). "This event is of such great weight that the whole of Christian doctrine stands or falls with it… The two truths or facts by which all of Christian dogmatics is governed are (1) the fall of Adam and (2) the resurrection of Christ" (p. 38). "For if humankind is one, then it has descended from one ancestral couple; then it has spread out over the whole world from one specific location… then a moral deviation must have occurred at the beginning in the life of the first human couple, for sin is universal" (p. 39).
6. Pagan Explanations of Sin: Although the Bible is unique in its account of the fall, there are various traditions and myths arising from other groups that speak of the origin of sin in pagan terms. "In many sagas the memory of a golden age experienced by the human race has been preserved… All these stories and others like them have no higher meaning other than to show that the human race from ancient times and everywhere wanted to give an account of the horrendous destruction the world exhibited, by seeing in it the result of a fall that took place in the life of humanity… there is belief in the divine origin and destiny of humanity, in a golden age and subsequent decline, in the battle between good and evil, and in the wrath and appeasement of the deity" (p. 40). These pagan stories confirm that the effects of sin are felt everywhere and by everyone. Nonetheless, they do not contain the truth that is found in the Bible. These stories only "bring out how pagans, though they gropingly searched for God, did not find him [cf. Acts 17:27]" (p. 40). "Outside the area of special revelation… sin was always either interpreted deistically in terms of the human will and construed purely as an act of the will or derived pantheistically from the essence of things and incorporated as a necessary component in the order of the universe as a whole" (p. 42).
7. Pelagianism's Explanation of Sin: At the beginning of the fifth century, a British monk named Pelagius proposed that the fall was not a unique catastrophic event, and further that the fall did not have universal implications for the entire human race. Pelagius "[rejected] all notions of original sin… sin is not innate [but rather] a free act of the will… every human being is still born in the same state in which Adam was [created]… And all humans therefore stand or fall by themselves. Sin originates anew in every person; in every human life there occurs a fall when the power of free will is neglected or applied in a wrong direction" (pp. 42-43). According to Pelagius, free will is an essential part of human nature, and can never be removed (see volume 2, chapter 12, point #3). "These ideas of Pelagius were so obviously at odds with the teaching of Scripture and the faith of the church that they could not possibly be accepted by the church" (p. 43). Pelagius and his teachings were formally condemned and declared heretical by the church at the Council of Carthage and the First Council of Ephesus (see volume 2, chapter 7, point #6).
8. Semi-Pelagianism's Explanation of Sin: Although Pelagianism was condemned, a modified and toned-down form of Pelagius' teachings emerged. A form of this semi-Pelagianism was received by the Roman Catholic Church. According to Rome, humans were created with a superadded gift (the image of God) that was received in addition to the natural state of mankind (see volume 2, chapter 12, point #4). When Adam fell, the superadded gift was lost for both him and his descendants. Therefore, in this view, original sin consists in a loss (privation) of the superadded gift, but all the natural gifts remain intact. As such, "though the will may have been weakened, it is neither lost nor corrupted. Thus fallen nature is actually totally identical with uncorrupted nature… In the abstract, therefore, a person could possibly abstain from all actual sins" (p. 43).
Likewise, Socinianism and Remonstrantism (Arminianism) also received a form of semi-Pelagianism. The "basic idea was always that sin is not rooted in a nature and is not a disposition or a state, but always an act of the will… To the extent that a state of integrity was assumed, it consisted mainly in childlike innocence, in the freedom of indifference, in the possibility of opting for either good or evil. The fall itself, when it is still recognized as a historical fact, loses its appalling significance and is an event rather like what occurs at every moment in human life when evil is chosen over the good. And the consequences of the fall are therefore also of little weight. Children are born in the same state as that in which Adam lived before his disobedience. Freedom of the will, that is, the image of God, remains intact. At most a certain tendency toward sin is transplanted from person to person" (p. 44). "Death is essentially not a consequence of sin but integral to the nature of humanity. Spiritual and eternal death was in no way a punishment for the first sin" (p. 44).