Salvation By Grace

How did Adam incline evil in his heart when God created him good?

• Edwards argues that before an action takes place there must be an inclination for that action
• For Adam to have taken the apple, there must have been an inclination in his heart for sin
• If he was created with the ability to sin and the ability not to sin, why then would a good creature without any evil in him choose to sin; for him to sin there must have been the inclination in his heart to sin and where did this come from? Sooner or later, you come to God (the creator).
• This is why supralapsarianists say God ordained the fall
• Sproul says he would agree with that, but not in such a way that He (God) would have done violence to the creature: If God creates a creature with an inclination to sin, how then could he find fault in the creature? this is why Sproul says he is an infralapsarianist rather than a supralapsarianist. The question he says is where we put the mystery. We can say how could a good creature incline himself to evil or the supralapsarianist says that God gave him the that inclination, and if we say that how do we escape the conclusion that God is the author of evil and they (the supralapasarianists) would say well that is the mystery; so it is a question of where you put the mystery
• Sproul goes on to say that the answers that Adam got the inclination from the devil or his own free will, do not really probe to the depth of the question
• Sproul’s conclusion is that he does not know the answer
• Not from the sermon but may be helpful definitions: The terms are often used in a general sense, with supralapsarianism meaning that God planned the fall and infralapsarianism that God merely foresaw, and hence permitted or merely reacted to, the fall.

From a website which is a nice summary of the crux of the problem discussed above:
Indeed, as Scripture declares, God looked upon all that He had made, and it was very good.

I have a question, though. How was Adam able to sin? Michael Horton, in Putting Amazing back into Grace, writes, “the impression is given that there is something inherent in our humanness that predisposes us to sin…there is nothing wrong with the Manufacturer or his product; the problem is with what his creatures decided to do with the freedom he sovereignly gave them.”

How, though, did the creature ‘decide’ to do something that he was not predisposed to do in the first place? Is that possible? Is that logical?

I agree that there is nothing wrong with the ‘Manufacturer’, who is God. And I also agree that in the beginning, everything He made was ‘very good’. What I am pondering is how something that is created good and sinless can sin, unless they were created with a predisposition, or bent, toward sin. Horton says Adam was NOT created with a predisposition toward sin. My reply is, how then could Adam sin? Where did the disposition, the propensity, the tendency, the inclination to sin come from? Would it not have to be something he was already capable of doing prior to his doing it for him to be able to do it in the first place? And, if he was already capable of doing it prior to him doing it, does it not follow then that he had to have been created with a predisposition for doing it?

I think many consider Adam’s sin to be that point at which he took and ate, but Scripture teaches that actual sin begins prior to the act. James said of sin, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.”

According to James, sin begins with lust, and I think we would all agree that Adam’s sin had to begin somewhere prior to his actually taking the fruit and eating it. Adam, in his heart, had to begin thinking about what he was getting ready to do (Scripture even shows us that Eve, prior to eating, developed lust for the fruit and the results of taking it prior to eating). And my point is that, if Adam had not been created with an inclination toward sin, then he would not have been able to even conceive of sin at all. For if there is no inclination toward something, then there will be no movement in that direction.

I would be interested in your thoughts on how Adam came to sin if he was not already predisposed to sin, or inclined to do so…and don’t give me, “The devil made him do it”!

Various peoples’ Responses:
I think a careful look at the accounts of the Creation and the Fall will reveal that both Adam and Eve were incapable of sinning in and of themselves.They were created as ‘very good’. No blemish. No inherent disposition – as this would imply that they weren’t all that crash hot. The temptation could not come from within, but it came from without. The sinless cannot sin unless it is a pressure from an external source – and this source was Satan. As the story goes, Eve was beguiled – now I see no reason why someone who is sinless cannot be tricked or convinced otherwise – but again I restate that the influence was external. The best lies are those that we are convinced are truths. A little push was all that Satan required to do … and the state of our world shows the avalanche that has become of it.
response to that statement:
If there is no inclination or disposition to sin whatsoever, then no amount of external influence to disobey would make a difference, would it? If Adam and Eve were able to sin, and able to NOT sin, then doesn’t the very fact that they were able TO sin mean that there must be some pre-disposition, some pre-inclination, to even be able to have that ability? Good thoughts, all. The bottom line of all this anyway is that Adam was pre-ordained to fall by God, because the whole plan of redemption was in place prior to creation.
It is difficult to see the existent conditions from this side of the fall, so far removed from the date of occurrence and with little Biblical information to guide us to understanding. Promote thinking…yes, coming to a final conclusion…no. It is and will be a paradox until we reach full knowledge sometime in the future. Should we educate ourselves on the various views and implications? Yes, but let us not dwell on those things that prove to be a distraction very few sheep ever lose sleep over.

From a website:

Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Supralapsarianism? What’s that?
Laurence Vance writes: “If God has ordained everything for his glory then the reprobation of the wicked is his ‘determinate counsel’ (Acts 2:23) and takes place ‘according to the counsel of his own will’ (Eph. 1:11) no matter which lapsarian system one adheres to.” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.298)

The contention is whether or not there is any real difference between Supra-lapsarianism vs. Infra-lapsarianism, or whether the purported distinction is merely a false dichotomy, where a system of jargon is invented for the sole purpose of Special Pleading. In other words, the charge is essentially whether any Calvinism inevitably boils down to the hyper Calvinism of Supra-lapsarianism.

First, what is Supra-lapsarianism?

To begin, I will first define the Calvinistic lapsarian terms, and then I will cite a couple of quotes, and then ask you three simple (Yes/No) questions.

The word “lapsarian” comes from the Latin word lapsus, which means the “doctrine of the Fall.” The prefix supra means above, while the prefix infra implies below. So the perspective of the former is “before the Fall” while the perspective of the latter is “after the Fall,” or in lieu of the Fall.

1) Supra-lapsarianism: The damnation of the [alleged] “non-elect” is according to the secret purpose of God, without regard to their sin. Creation, the Fall, and sin must all be the manifestation of the secret counsel of God, having created the [alleged] “non-elect” by necessity. This is also known as Double Predestination or Unconditional Reprobation. Its logical order is:

1. Election and Reprobation

2. Creation

3. Fall

4. Atonement for the elect

5. Salvation for the elect

Here is a statement of Supralapsarianism:

John Calvin writes: “…God has chosen to salvation those whom He pleased, and has rejected the others, without our knowing why, except that its reason is hidden in His eternal counsel.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.53)

Calvin explains: “When God prefers some to others, choosing some and passing others by, the difference does not depend on human dignity or indignity. It is therefore wrong to say that the reprobate are worthy of eternal destruction.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.120-121)

In other words, Reprobation is just as unconditional as Election.

Calvin adds: “If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121)

In other words, the Unconditional Reprobation of the wicked is not in lieu of their sin, but in lieu of God’s alleged decree, which establishes their “lot” in life:

Calvin writes: “…the reason why God elects some and rejects others is to be found in His purpose alone. … before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God. … the salvation or the destruction of men depends on His free election.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.203)

Calvin writes: “There are some, too, who allege that God is greatly dishonored if such arbitrary power is bestowed on Him. But does their distaste make them better theologians than Paul, who has laid it down as the rule of humility for the believers, that they should look up to the sovereignty of God and not evaluate it by their own judgment?” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.209-210)

Calvin adds: “At this point in particular the flesh rages when it hears that the predestination to death of those who perish is referred to the will of God.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.208)

2) Infra-lapsarianism: The damnation of the [alleged] “non-elect” is strictly according to the sin of man. This is called Single Predestination, and closely associated with Preterition, which conveys the meaning that the [alleged] “non-elect” are simply “passed by” and left out of the will of God. It rejects the idea that God creates sinners by “necessity,” and to ultimately damn them for the glory of God.

1. Creation

2. Fall

3. Election and Reprobation

4. Atonement for the elect

5. Salvation for the elect

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, explains: “If any of you want to know what I preach every day, and any stranger should say, ‘Give me a summary of his doctrine,’ say this, ‘He preaches salvation all of grace, and damnation all of sin. He gives God all the glory for every soul that is saved, but he won’t have it that God is to blame for any man that is damned.’ That teaching I cannot understand. My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.” (Jacob and Esau)

So it seems that according to John Calvin, the sentiment expressed by Chares Spurgeon is nothing more than an example of how “the flesh rages” against the “arbitrary power” of the “sovereignty of God.”

3) Sub-lapsarianism: As a close relative of Infra-lapsarianism, the prefix sub also implies below or after. This designation accommodates the atonement views of the 4-Point Calvinists, so that Election and Reprobation are placed in a logical order which follow the atonement:

1. Creation

2. Fall

3. Atonement for all

4. Election and Reprobation

Salvation for the elect

4) Conclusion: Now we come to the conclusion, which is the question of whether any of these designations are legitimate distinctions, or merely worthless jargon used to confound, confuse and obfuscate:

Calvinist, G.C. Berkouwer, states: “We cannot speak of before and after in God’s eternal decrees as we do in time, hence the difference between supra and infra can be called imaginary because it implies the application of a temporal order to eternity.” (Divine Election, p.261)

Berkouwer adds: “The fall must ultimately have been part of God’s counsel and therefore it ‘rests’ in God’s sovereign pleasure. But in that case the infra concept says the same as the supra.” (Divine Election, p.261)