Regarding The Moral Ability Of Adam
In The Image Of God
by E.A. Green

The purpose of this article is to address the question of Adam’s moral ability in the original state. Specifically, I will address the question: “Did Adam possess the moral capacity to effectively and efficiently resist sin in the original state?” My view is this: Adam was endowed by his Creator with all the faculties and powers necessary to effectively resist temptation and maintain the state of purity and innocence in which he was created. In other words, he had the capacity to be obedient to the law that was given him and thus effectively resist any temptation designed to lead him astray. I believe this is the biblical view. While it is true that he failed in this respect, his failure does not make the case for those that argue he lacked such an ability. I must therefore reject all flavors of the notion which imply, or in any way give the impression, that the “deck was stacked against him”.

I don’t believe that those who argue that Adam lacked the ability to effectively resist sin, necessarily do so with bad intention. Even the best of men are subject to err. Error is especially apt to occur when men attempt to rationalize scripture to accommodate suppositions they hold in other areas of thought. I’m led to believe this occasionally occurs with the subject at hand. When this issue arises, it frequently precipitates from discussion on Predestination, Sovereignty of God, and God’s Decrees. Admittedly, these are difficult subjects and beyond human ability to fully comprehend. However, it becomes a fault when the plain teaching regarding Adam’s Moral Ability is rationalized in order to make it fit with our personal view point of other doctrines. Where this occurs it suggests, at least to me, the possibility of further error in the perception of these deeper doctrines.

Let me say to those that disfavor argumentation and are repulsed by it, that Adam’s Moral Standing is an important teaching which has been argued for centuries and, no doubt, will continue to be argued so long as there remains an interest in objective truth. Those that fail to appreciate the importance of this teaching, may like myself, learn to appreciate it in time. It seems clear to me, that to the degree we diminish or lessen any aspect of Adam’s Moral Ability, to that same degree we weaken the case for his accountability and lessen his guilt worthiness, and consequently, provide some measure of excuse for his act of disobedience. I believe this casts a poor reflection upon our powerful, wise, and righteous Creator who doeth all things well and pronounced the same upon his handiwork.

Furthermore, it is my belief that the subject of Adam’s Moral Ability to effectively resist sin can be demonstrated by the plain teaching of scripture, to the degree that, cavil from honest men and sincere students will cease. It is not some nubilous, obscure teaching hidden in the secret will of God; this I hope to show both by scripture and respected sources.

In The Image Of God

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..." Gen. 1:26
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen. 1:27

I believe these verses will provide a sound basis for an understanding of the subject. Adam bore an exclusive likeness to his creator that was unique to him; nothing else of the natural creation shared this advantage. Consider the following ways he reflected God’s image:

  1. Exalted Position
    This image was reflected by the exalted position Adam had relative to the rest of creation; he was given dominion over all the natural creation.
  2. A Trichotomy
    Furthermore, this image was reflected by the essential composition of the man; he being a trichotomy-- a human body, a human soul, and a human spirit.
  3. Unique Faculties
    Adam was endowed with special faculties which are a reflection of his Creator; a rational mind\intellect, emotion\affections, and will\volition.
  4. Special Qualities
    The divine image was further reflected by special qualities that were an essential part of Adam’s character; Purity, Righteousness, and Holiness. These qualities are not neutral in their effect. The importance of this will be seen further along when we offer scriptural evidence to support our claim that Adam had the moral strength to resist sin and obey God’s law. For now I simply note, that much of the disputation regarding Adam’s Moral Ability centers around the significance of these special qualities, particularly the quality of righteousness, and whether he possessed them. I will therefore address this in more detail shortly.

    The quality of Purity indicates that there was no moral defilement in his character; Righteousness indicates a rightness or rectitude of moral character; Holiness indicates perfectness of character. To my mind, these three qualities are a unit. In other words, it would not be consistent to say, “Adam was pure, but not holy”, or, “Adam was righteous, but not pure.” I suspect that all will allow that Adam was Pure in his original state. If indeed these qualities are a unit, it therefore appears inconsistent to argue that Adam lacked the other two qualities, namely, holiness and righteousness. This will find further support by what follows.

  5. A Moral Creature
    A moral creature is one that has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong conduct. Here again Adam reflects the image of his Creator and, as a creature, becomes accountable for his actions under God’s moral government. As a moral creature, the qualities of Purity, Holiness, and Righteousness are of special significance because they form the back-bone of moral fiber and strength. Therefore, an accurate assessment of Adam’s ability to function as a moral creature is unlikely when\where these qualities are ignored.
  6. An Upright Creature
    Adam was morally Upright-- a reflection of his Creator. What does this mean? In addition to the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, he had uprightness, the moral rectitude to prefer and choose the right, and to reject and abhor the wrong. Because of Righteousness of character, Adam was biased to choose the good and refuse the evil. This is how an Upright person acts; this is characteristic of an upright being. I fail to see how it could be otherwise. How could it be said that a person was Upright if he wasn’t inclined to do the Right thing? Or, if he was just as apt to do the Wrong thing as the Right thing? It would be a contradiction. Lets investigate this important point from scripture.

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29

This text has something to say about the moral character of Adam. I maintain that the word “upright” is not a morally neutral term, but rather, indicates the positive quality of righteousness seen in moral rectitude. Will a word study of its usage in the scripture support this? I believe it does. It is from Strongs # 3477. Consider how this word is used in other places.

I believe all can see from these verses, that the quality of Righteousness is implied in the usage of the word “upright”. We wish to be understood, Ecclesiastes 7:29 does not describe Adam in morally neutral terms, “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright (#3477)”. Adam was righteous, which is what the word “upright” signifies, and consequently, he had the capacity, the will and moral strength to effectively resist temptation and obey God.

Regarding Moral Innocence
This is an area where divergent opinions and ideas frequently surface. I suppose that all agree that Adam was Innocent in the Original State; by this it is meant that he was undefiled and had no guilt. However, the biblical view goes beyond this and presents Adam as being righteous, the possession of which quality, gave him the moral strength to resist sin; it is this particular that some object to, and consequently, argue against.

Moral Innocence alone, without the positive quality of Righteousness, has no virtue to effectively resist sin. It is as passive and vulnerable as the infant in a mothers’ womb. Moral Innocence is appropriately equated with Moral Neutrality. In my opinion, it is unlikely there has ever been a Morally Neutral person. However, to clarify the issue consider the following:

Moral neutrality presents man's will and affections as a pendulum poised in a central position of equilibrium. Thus poised, the pendulum is equally suited to go either left or right according to the direction of the force applied to it. Thus, a morally neutral person is just as likely to do evil as he is good; there is no bias toward either. Like the pendulum it just depends on which force happens to apply the pressure.

Moral Neutrality is no virtue. Similarly, Moral Innocence is vulnerable and unable to mount the least degree of resistance to sin or temptation. In actual practice and experience, a person that lacks an inclination to choose the good and reject the evil is an immoral person. We may be sure, that when a moral creature has no bias unto holiness or an inclination to follow righteousness, there can be but little, meaningful or true reflection of the Creator’s image. I conclude this section with a quote from R.V. Sarrels in, Systematic Theology, pg. 197-198.

“Man’s righteousness, in both soul and body, was natural; that is, it was not personal and acquired. The opinion that man was created neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous, but capable of being either the one or the other, makes him to have existed in a state of moral weightlessness. His will, if indeed he had one, was poised on a sort of continental divide and in a state of absolute indifference. He would have been a naked entity, an existence totally void of quality. But a will without inclination, without propensity, is inconceivable.”

Statements From Respected Sources
In conclusion I offer the following quotes that relate to the subject.

London Confession 1689 ; Ch.IV, #2 -- After God had made all other creatures He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created, being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change. Hassell History pg. 671

London Confession 1689 ; Ch.IX, #2 -- Man in his state of innocency had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God; but yet was mutable, so that he might fall from it. Ibid

John Gill -- of the fall says, “God decreed it, but that the sin of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not owing to God, for He forbade it, was displeased with it, and resented it to the highest degree; that He have Adam power to abstain from eating the forbidden fruit, had he made use of it, so that he could have stood if he would;” Hassell History pg. 652

John Gill -- God did not withdraw any favour from man he had bestowed upon him, nor any power and strength to stand which he had given him; for when God does any thing of this kind, it is by way of punishment for a preceding sin or sins; but no such punishment could be inflicted on Adam, because as yet he had not sinned; but God left him in the full possession of all the powers and abilities he had conferred upon him so that he could have stood if he would; he did not indeed grant him new favours, nor give him additional power and strength, which he was not obliged unto; he gave him enough, had he made right use of it, to have continued in his integrity; and to have resisted every temptation. Now these negative acts of God could never make him chargeable with being the author of Adam’s sin and fall. A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity, Book III, CH. VIII

http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen