To hold that Adam was created undecided, would make man, as Philippi says, in the highest sense his own creator. But morally, as well as physically, man is God?s creature. In regeneration it is not sufficient for God to give power to decide for good; God must give new love also. If this be so in the new creation, God could give love in the first creation also. Holiness therefore can be created. Underived holiness is possible only in God; in its origin, it is given both to angels and men.? Therefore we pray: ?Create in me a clean heart? ( <195110>Psalm 51:10); ?Incline my heart unto thy testimonies? ( <19B936>Psalm 119:36). See Edwards, Eff. Grace, sec. 43-51; Kaftan, Dogmatik, 290 ? ?If Adam?s perfection was not a moral perfection, then his sin was no real moral corruption.? The animus of the theory we are combating seems to be an unwillingness to grant that man, either in his first creation or in his new creation, owes his holiness to God.

(b) The knowledge of God in which man was originally created logically presupposes a direction toward God of man?s affections and will, since only the holy heart can leave any proper understanding of the God of holiness.

?Ubi caritas, ibi claritas.? Man?s heart was originally filled with divine love and out of this comes the knowledge of God. We know God only as we love him and this love comes not from our own single volition. No one loves by command because no one can give himself love. In Adam, love was an inborn impulse, which he could affirm or deny. Compare <460803>1 Corinthians 8:3 ? ?if any man loveth God, the same [God] is known by him?; <620408>1 John 4:8 ? ?He that loveth not knoweth not God.? See other Scripture references on pages 3, 4.

(c) A likeness to God in mere personality, such as Satan also possesses, comes far short of answering the demands of the Scripture, in which the ethical conception of the divine nature so overshadows the merely natural. The image of God must not simply be an ability to be like God but actual likeness.

God could never create an intelligent being evenly balanced between good and evil ? ?on the razor?s edge? or ?on the fence.? The preacher, who took for his text ?Adam, where art thou?? had for his first heading: ?It is every man?s business to be somewhere.? for his second: ?Some of you are where you ought not to be.? For his third: ?Get where you ought to be, as soon as possible.? A simple capacity for good or evil is, as Augustine says, already sinful. A man who is neutral between good and evil is already a violator of that law, which requires likeness to God in the bent

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment