Thread: The Deepest "Why" Question

I am having a good discussion with an unbelieving friend of mine concerning the "why" question and it has proved stimulating for me. Thought I'd put his next question up here for your perusal and as a little "Apologetics practice" for all of us.

(The "choice" he is referring to is Adam's choice to obey or disobey)

The real question is: why provide that kind of choice? Furthermore, if we assume that Adam lacked this desire to sin, why in the world would he have chosen it over obedience, given what there was to lose (assuming, of course that he understood what was on the line...if he didn't, God set him up to fail, and is a righteous b******).

Tolkien actually has a wonderful answer to this question. Read the first chapter of the Silmirillion. Basically, God wills this to allow even greater things to come forth from the fall.

I would answer that God desires to reveal Himself in such a way that is incomprehensible to the universe (prior to Adam). Did He know Adam would fall when He created Adam? Sure. Why? Because what was last in action must be first in thought. That is, while Calvary was necessary because of the fall, in a way the fall was necessary so that there could be a Calvary. It is only at Calvary that the true character and nature of God is revealed, that He is a merciful and gracious God. This makes us (the human race) recipients and instruments to show forth His glory.

Having said that and re-read what I typed, it seems as though I made no provision for Adam to NOT sin. Hmm but thinking about whether Adam could or could not fall just seems to me futile speculation.

This is how I answer such questions in my own dealings (not much) with apologetics. Looking forward to what others here would say.

I don't know how satisfying my answer will be.

I'm convinced that there is no Biblical argument that will make a fallen man rest in the decree of God.

Even if we find an explanation that satisfies everybody (BTW God doesn't tell us so we'd be speculating), you'll still run into the issue of the fact that God decrees to impute the guilt and corruption of that first Sin to all of Adam's descendants. Whether or not, in the abstract, a man can get over "poor" Adam being given a choice, he certainly won't like to hear that he and every little baby ever born is under the wrath of God for Original Sin.

Man neither likes the condition he is in, that it has been decreed he be there by God and neither does he like the fact that God sent His Son to be the Federal Head for all who believe.

I have to first give the most fundamental answer: Because He wanted to. "Who are you, O man...?" God's divine sovereignty is such that His will by definition is right and all-determining and thus he wanted (decretively) for the Fall to occur, hence, it did. Beyond that of course you turn to Romans 9: He wanted the Fall in order to manifest His grace on the elect and His power and wrath upon the reprobate.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

The real question is: why provide that kind of choice? Furthermore, if we assume that Adam lacked this desire to sin, why in the world would he have chosen it over obedience, given what there was to lose (assuming, of course that he understood what was on the line...if he didn't, God set him up to fail, and is a righteous b******).

The questioner sees two problems.

The first problem is that God would provide an option for Adam to fall. Christians must not be ashamed to proclaim that God foreordained Adam's sin for His own glory. God would proceed to demonstrate his justice and grace through this and in the subsequent events. The highest purpose is God, not man. Jay Adams calls this the 'Grand Demonstration'. The unrepentant have a problem with this notion and will not put God's glory first until they have been humbled from their place of blaspheming God for it.

The second problem is how Adam could be so stupid to choose sin. This is a question for Adam and not God. It is a false assumption that Adam lacked the desire to sin - his desire to sin was indeed aroused. Why else would he have done it? But people could just as easily be called stupid today, since we continue to be warned by the Word that our sin will lead to sorrow and pain, and yet we do sin. This ought to show us of our great need for the Savior.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I am having a good discussion with an unbelieving friend of mine concerning the "why" question and it has proved stimulating for me. Thought I'd put his next question up here for your perusal and as a little "Apologetics practice" for all of us.

(The "choice" he is referring to is Adam's choice to obey or disobey)

The real question is: why provide that kind of choice? Furthermore, if we assume that Adam lacked this desire to sin, why in the world would he have chosen it over obedience, given what there was to lose (assuming, of course that he understood what was on the line...if he didn't, God set him up to fail, and is a righteous b******).

According to what standard? If God writes the rules, and in the question He obviously does, then God determines right and wrong. Why is it wrong for God to inject that choice and know that Adam will fail? He can't be wrong if He determines what is right and wrong, and you can't fault God for being wrong when you have no standard to apply to Him; He is the standard ergo He is de facto right.

As to "why", we're not explicitly told, but we can infer that it was to illustrate God's attributes of justice, mercy, faithfulness, wrath, etc. Were things as they were in the Garden, we may know that God is all of those things, but we would not have seen them. As for why we need to see them, because God, who writes the rules, determined it to be so.

God gave Adam the opportunity to fulfill his commission. God put him in charge of the garden, with a responsibility to keep it from being profaned. If Adam had rebuked the serpent -- as the second Adam would later do (Luke 4; Zech 3) -- then he would bring glory to God, complete his probation, and be on the path to blessedness.

Adam failed, and yet God still showed mercy and redemption. Blaming God in this case is simply repeating Adam's sin: "it was the woman YOU gave me.... the serpent that YOU placed in the garden...."; one might add, "the choice YOU put before me". The beginning of the sin was adopting a judgmental stance against the Lord and his law, instead of accepting God's terms and fulfilling His charge.

Semper Fidelis
Man neither likes the condition he is in, that it has been decreed he be there by God and neither does he like the fact that God sent His Son to be the Federal Head for all who believe.

Man does like the condition he is in, otherwise he would choose God and holiness. His incapacity is in the will, therefore it is culpable. The fact that he can't believe is also that he won't believe, from another perspective. If the incapacity was in another faculty, men wouldn't be culpable for their unbelief, and it would be right for us to sympathise with them in their disability. The "Can't!" is a "Won't!", and the "Won't!" is a "Can't!"

Quote from Tim
The second problem is how Adam could be so stupid to choose sin. This is a question for Adam and not God. It is a false assumption that Adam lacked the desire to sin - his desire to sin was indeed aroused. Why else would he have done it? But people could just as easily be called stupid today, since we continue to be warned by the Word that our sin will lead to sorrow and pain, and yet we do sin. This ought to show us of our great need for the Savior.

It's not really stupidity, as if this was a naive and childish pecadillo. How wicked were Adam and Eve? Maybe this could merit another thread? Were they like wide-eyed toddlers playing with crayons and drawing on a wall that there mother had told them not to draw on, or wide-eyed children playing with matches. Or when we read the account of the Fall, should we be filled with a sense of horror at the wicedness of it, as we are when we see a TV programme about a serial killer who is helped by a female friend, or about Pol Pot or Stalin?

How wicked was this deed? Remember too that although it was a Covenant of Works, since it would be broken by a sin of comission in the eating of the Tree, Adam and Eve effectively had to do nothing in order to remain in original righteousness. Adam and Eve also weren't ingenues. They would be equipped with the finest souls, minds, brains and bodies ever. God would also have stored these minds with all the knowledge they needed as adults that had missed their childhood, and to carry out the creation mandate, and all that was needed to comprehend the Covenant of Works.

In many ways the Covenant was gracious, although at heart it remained a Covenant of Works. God was very gracious to the first pair in the Covenant of Works, and they had to do precisely nothing to be maintained in a state of original righteousness.

They knew God, in a way that we don't, and communed with Him, even through theophany.

They were given every advantage and blessing, and they knew that they would plunge not only themselves but all their children into ruin. In some aspects their sin was greater than that of Lucifer himself. I think Adam went into this with his eyes wide open, probably more wide open than we would have been, because of the several advantages he had over us.

Quote from Louis
Adam failed, and yet God still showed mercy and redemption. Blaming God in this case is simply repeating Adam's sin: "it was the woman YOU gave me.... the serpent that YOU placed in the garden....";

This is important. Blaming God for sin, proves the truth of original sin, by showing that we are children of Adam, whose sinful instincts as soon as he fell into sin were to blame God.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Semper Fidelis
Man neither likes the condition he is in, that it has been decreed he be there by God and neither does he like the fact that God sent His Son to be the Federal Head for all who believe.

Man does like the condition he is in, otherwise he would choose God and holiness. His incapacity is in the will, therefore it is culpable. The fact that he can't believe is also that he won't believe, from another perspective. If the incapacity was in another faculty, men wouldn't be culpable for their unbelief, and it would be right for us to sympathise with them in their disability. The "Can't!" is a "Won't!", and the "Won't!" is a "Can't!"

Rather than isolating that particular quote from the rest of my statement, you might want to read more carefully before reading into it a meaning I never intended. I believe courtesy demands no less.

The condition being spoken of is the imputation of Sin and guilt from Adam (aka Original Sin). This is by decree and imputation by a Holy God who fallen man resists.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I don't know how satisfying my answer will be.

I'm convinced that there is no Biblical argument that will make a fallen man rest in the decree of God.

Even if we find an explanation that satisfies everybody (BTW God doesn't tell us so we'd be speculating), you'll still run into the issue of the fact that God decrees to impute the guilt and corruption of that first Sin to all of Adam's descendants. Whether or not, in the abstract, a man can get over "poor" Adam being given a choice, he certainly won't like to hear that he and every little baby ever born is under the wrath of God for Original Sin.

Man neither likes the condition he is in, that it has been decreed he be there by God and neither does he like the fact that God sent His Son to be the Federal Head for all who believe.

IMHO, this is the best possible answer, but it is not one he will like. It appears he is trying to pry into the secret will of God, which is not his prerogative (per Deut. 29:29). You might also want to point out this is the same substance as Adam's sin -- the desire to want knowledge beyond what God has revealed and has limited. Instead of offering a good objection, he is actually confirming himself in an Adamic-like sin.

The revealed will of God is to repent and trust in Christ. Make sure this is laid clearly before him (I am confident you have). Instead of straying into an endless series of what-if rabbit trails, bring him back to his need for Christ. There will always be objections/questions that he can muster, but this is just a distraction from the real issue of his need to be right before God. This latter point is part of the revealed will of God, and he needs to be content with those sorts of answers.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I am having a good discussion with an unbelieving friend of mine concerning the "why" question and it has proved stimulating for me. Thought I'd put his next question up here for your perusal and as a little "Apologetics practice" for all of us.

(The "choice" he is referring to is Adam's choice to obey or disobey)

The real question is: why provide that kind of choice? Furthermore, if we assume that Adam lacked this desire to sin, why in the world would he have chosen it over obedience, given what there was to lose (assuming, of course that he understood what was on the line...if he didn't, God set him up to fail, and is a righteous b******).

God wanted to glorify Himself and to display His attributes.

A bad answer would be, "so that Adam would not be a robot." Even if Adam did not have the choice to obey or disobey God, he wouldn't be robot. He could still act according to his desires. He wouldn't have to forced to do what he does.