Was Adam created with a sin nature?

[Calminian]

A simple question which may seem strange at first.

I'm trying to write a paper addressing this, and could use some good feedback. The background is the notion of strict determinism or the idea that LFW is logically impossible. And if it's logically impossible, then pre-fallen Adam and Satan and his angels all were predetermined to sin from the beginning. And if they were pre-determined to sin, then their sin was natural, and if natural, they were created with sin natures which seems to fly in the face of Gen. 1:31.

Is the idea of Adam created with a sin nature something you're comfortable with, if indeed you believe LFW is logically impossible. I know not all calvinists accept this idea, but am interested in those who do, particularly those holding to supralapsarian ideas.

[Obsidian]

It seems to me that the three parts of the Trinity are in perfect or near-perfect unity, but that the moment you introduce other free beings into the mix made in God's image, you are just asking for trouble. So the free-will response would probably say that at least some of the created beings were bound to rebel against God. And that's exactly what happened. Some portion of the angels rebelled, and then two humans rebelled along with them.

It would be inaccurate, though, to call it a sin nature. A sin nature is what makes all modern humans deeply flawed. Adam was only flawed in a small way, namely that he lacked strong enough faith in God's warning about the fruit.

[RBerman]

It would be inaccurate, though, to call it a sin nature. A sin nature is what makes all modern humans deeply flawed. Adam was only flawed in a small way, namely that he lacked strong enough faith in God's warning about the fruit.

Right. "Sin nature" is a separate issue from determinism vs LFW.

[micah4]

Right. "Sin nature" is a separate issue from determinism vs LFW.

It's not a separate issue. If you hold to compatibilism this position entails that people always act according to their nature, and that their nature determines their greatest desire and that is always what they choose. If that's the case, then when adam sinned it was because his nature determined that he would- but adam was created with an unfallen nature. This is a problem for compatibilism but not for LFW. I have never heard a coherent explanation of the fall of Adam consistent with the other claims of compatibilism.

[Calminian]

It seems to me that the three parts of the Trinity are in perfect or near-perfect unity, but that the moment you introduce other free beings into the mix made in God's image, you are just asking for trouble. So the free-will response would probably say that at least some of the created beings were bound to rebel against God. And that's exactly what happened. Some portion of the angels rebelled, and then two humans rebelled along with them.

It would be inaccurate, though, to call it a sin nature. A sin nature is what makes all modern humans deeply flawed. Adam was only flawed in a small way, namely that he lacked strong enough faith in God's warning about the fruit.

Okay, but how is it different? You say Adam was only a "little flawed." So, are you saying he only had a little sin nature?

This is a very concerning statement, especially for those concerned about the integrity of the Genesis account. When Adam and Eve were complete, God said they and everything else were "very good." Yet you say, they were a little flawed.

For some reason, no one wants to take Genesis at face value. There's always a tendency to impose outside ideas onto the text.

[Calminian]

It's not a separate issue. If you hold to compatibilism this position entails that people always act according to their nature, and that their nature determines their greatest desire and that is always what they choose. If that's the case, then when adam sinned it was because his nature determined that he would- but adam was created with an unfallen nature. This is a problem for compatibilism but not for LFW. I have never heard a coherent explanation of the fall of Adam consistent with the other claims of compatibilism.

Just to be completely precise, I would limit this to something I call strict compatibilism (or strict determinism). I think there are even arminians that believe that God hardens hearts from time to time, pre-determining peoples choices. And to be fair there are calvinists that believe LFW choices exist, they just don't believe they apply to saving faith. Greg Koukl would be an example. But there are calvinists, Jonathan Edwards comes to mind, who argue against even the logical possibility of LFW. This is the view I see as very problematic and contradictory toward the creation account. This actually forces the view of Adam being created with a sin nature and not "very good" as Genesis 1:31 indicates.

[Calminian]

Right. "Sin nature" is a separate issue from determinism vs LFW.

Sin nature is simply a theological term for man's condition of having a bent toward sin. It is natural for us to sin. It's how we're programed. But if Adam also was predetermined to sin, then I don't see why calling it a sin nature is inaccurate. If strict determinism is true, then Adam's sin was natural.

[Obsidian]

You say Adam was only a "little flawed." So, are you saying he only had a little sin nature?

I don't think the fact that he actually sinned means that he had a sin nature. Likewise, I don't think the fact that Satan sinned means that he had a sin nature. If it hadn't been Adam and Satan, it would've just been some different individuals. Someone was bound to sin because of free will, and others were bound to learn from their mistakes. That's just the nature of reality.

But if angels were born with a sin nature, it would mean that all the angels would've rebelled instead of just some of them. Yes, all the humans sinned, but there were just two of them -- and they were married.

[Ormly]

A simple question which may seem strange at first.

I'm trying to write a paper addressing this, and could use some good feedback. The background is the notion of strict determinism or the idea that LFW is logically impossible. And if it's logically impossible, then pre-fallen Adam and Satan and his angels all were predetermined to sin from the beginning. And if they were pre-determined to sin, then their sin was natural, and if natural, they were created with sin natures which seems to fly in the face of Gen. 1:31.

Is the idea of Adam created with a sin nature something you're comfortable with, if indeed you believe LFW is logically impossible. I know not all calvinists accept this idea, but am interested in those who do, particularly those holding to supralapsarian ideas.

"And God saw that is was good and then He rested". Creation was finished. No new creation would be forthcoming.

Adam was not created perfect but "good"; innocent. That is not meant to imply he was neutral in anyway. He was created to give God sons; a vast family of sinless sons and daughters who by procreation, would give Him and endless amount of them, all with His image stamped on them, even the Divine of Himself that they would be perfect "as He is perfect".

Adam forfeited his privilege in this and it fell to Jesus to make it right; restore the order of God's Ultimate Intention for Himself in man that He would be manifested in divine humankind. What was purposed for Adam now fell to Jesus to fulfill. Jesus became the first of firstfruits of many sons who would, through Him and by faith become a new creation to be brought unto Glory.

[RBerman]

Sin nature is simply a theological term for man's condition of having a bent toward sin. It is natural for us to sin. It's how we're programed. But if Adam also was predetermined to sin, then I don't see why calling it a sin nature is inaccurate. If strict determinism is true, then Adam's sin was natural.

That's not a precise enough definition of "sin nature." A Calvinist would say sin nature is a radical disposition toward sin which affects every part of man, and every action that we commit, and every thought and attitude in our heads. Calvinists deny that Adam had that sort of nature, which is inherently sinning all the time. That's why I said that "sin nature" is a different issue than LFW vs determinism. One can be a determinist and yet deny that Adam had a sin nature.

[Calminian]

That's not a precise enough definition of "sin nature." A Calvinist would say sin nature is a radical disposition toward sin which affects every part of man, and every action that we commit, and every thought and attitude in our heads. Calvinists deny that Adam had that sort of nature, which is inherently sinning all the time. That's why I said that "sin nature" is a different issue than LFW vs determinism. One can be a determinist and yet deny that Adam had a sin nature.

I realize you're stating this, but not actually giving a reason. You're simply stating that Adam was determined to sin, but you don't want to call it a sin nature, since it's different from Adam's post fall nature. You're stating "well, we define sin nature differently."

That still doesn't address the fact that Adam, according to you, was created with a bent toward sin. So it seems you're stating pre-fall Adam had a bent toward sin that was "good." And post-fall Adam had a bent that was bad.

My contention is, why not just let scripture inform you about this greek philosophical (Stoic) idea of strict determinism?

[Ormly]

Did Lucifer have a sin nature?

[Calminian]

I don't think the fact that he actually sinned means that he had a sin nature. Likewise, I don't think the fact that Satan sinned means that he had a sin nature. If it hadn't been Adam and Satan, it would've just been some different individuals. Someone was bound to sin because of free will, and others were bound to learn from their mistakes. That's just the nature of reality.

I agree with this, of course. I embrace LFW. I'm mainly challenging strict determinists who say it is impossible for one to act outside of their nature. This is not a challenge to calvinists in general, but only those who argue LFW to be illogical. And in my experience, most do.

But I, myself, am not arguing that Adam was determined by God to sin. Adam was created free in this regard.

[Calminian]

Did Lucifer have a sin nature?

FYI, there's no being called "Lucifer" in scripture. It's a mistranslation in the KJV.

[Ormly]

But I, myself, am not arguing that Adam was determined by God to sin..

I would. God never purposes or purposed anyone to rebel/disobey against Him. He just simply knows and plans for the eventuality.