Effects of Fall - Problems Arising From the Fall Part 1 — John Murray

O Lord, O God, do Thou grant that we may be instructed by Thy Spirit so as rightly to assess and confess our utterly undone and hopeless position, that we may marvel more and more at the riches of Thy grace and appropriate that provision which resides in its fullness in Christ Jesus, so that if Christ is ours, all things are ours.

To the glory of Thy name, through Christ our Savior. Amen. Now I'm dealing with the consequence of this world, I came to the second which is revolution in God's relation to man. And I had just mentioned that not only is man's attitude to God radically altered, but also God's relation to man, God's relation to mankind.

God's Immutable Character and His Changed Relation to Humanity

Now in connection with the immutability of God, it is always necessary to remember that God is immutable in His being, in His character, in His perfections, in His inter-divine relations, and in His purposes.

Immutable in being, character, perfections, inter-divine relations and purposes, but God does change His relations to His creatures. And particularly is that true with reference to mankind. And it is just because God is immutable in His being, in His character, and in His perfections, that He did change His relation to mankind.

Because this change in relation to mankind is the expression of His own character. This change of relationship arises, of course, from the fault, the sin of man. But it has its effect in this rupture which is so eloquently witnessed in the early chapters of Genesis, particularly in Genesis 3.

When you read Genesis 3, you will notice that there is a conspicuous change. Genesis 3, 9. See you in the conspicuous change of tone after Genesis 3, 9. Before that, there is everywhere the tokens of favor, complacency and harmony.

And now, an aspect of the divine character appears that is entirely new in divine human relations. Now you discover the notes of reproof, of anger, of retribution, of curse and condemnation, which there isn't the least suggestion in the earlier narratives of God's relation to man.

And to the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy contempt. In pain thou shalt bring forth children. To the man He said, Cursed is the ground for thy sake. In the sweat of thy feet shall there be bread, till thou return to the ground.

For thus thou art, thus thou shalt return. And then, finally, therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden to till the ground from whence he was taken. So He drove out the man. Expulsion of complacency, His delight, His favor and of divine human character.

Always take this into account, that sin not only makes a difference in man's attitude to God, but it makes a difference in God's attitude to man. And because there is that change in God's attitude to man, there is a radical change of relationship.

Our sins have separated between us and our God, and everything we do has to be faced by Him. You know the scripture has a very expressive way of dealing with this question. It speaks about the light of God's countenance, the light of God's countenance to express His favor, His delight, His good pleasure.

And the opposite is that His face is turned away from us, indicating, of course, His displeasure, His want. Now again, before I leave this, I want to stress what I stressed at the beginning, at the close of the hour yesterday, that this culture of relationship by which we are separated from God must never be dissociated from the attitude of heart and mind on the part.

I call the subject the attitude on the part, and our conception of the living God is distorted and very dishonoring to Him. We do not recognize our indignation with God's designated fanatic position, and that the separation, the objective separation, is the result of that radical change in the attitude of God to man.

The Cosmic Consequences of Sin

Now third, under this we have cosmic revolution, that is revolution in the creation of the heart and mind. Sin is not physical disturbance or physical maladjustment. Sin, as I pointed out yesterday, is a movement in the realm of the human spirit to the subjective realm of man's attitude, man's disposition, man's heart and mind and will.

Nevertheless, it radically affects the physical one, radically affects that which is metaphysically divergent, namely the material, the physical, and that consequence is also emblazoned in the religious practice.

And it is with that concept of Adam begin the curse of Israel. How shall it bring forth to thee in the sweat of thy face of the wheat bread? Nothing could advertise the cosmic implications of sin more than the curse upon Adam.

In the New Testament, we have the commentary in much broader terms. First of all, Genesis 3 .17, the epistle of all Romans and created. You see, we are informed that before creation, before creation groans and flabbers in pain, the creation itself was made the subject of vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected creation.

And you see that in Genesis, this curse is spoken of in terms of the earth upon which man lives, the earth upon which we have to taste because it is the throne. But in the New Testament expansion, we find that this extends to the whole of the created order, the creation, and because of the relationship that man sustains to the cosmos.

I say, because of this cosmic revolution and the relation that man sustains to this cosmos, a reconciliation accomplished by Christ, a reconciliation accomplished by Christ, will not be consummated in its fruitage, will not come to its final fruitage until the creation itself is a bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.

And that, of course, in following terms corresponds to what we have in 2 Peter, that we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth within the well of righteousness. I think that the plan is significant for the creation of man, and how significant for redemption is the salvation prophecy.

I don't know that I can do what I said, but I don't know that I'm not ready to do it. Now for the revolution in the human family. Pardon? Revolution in the human family. Pardon me, I've dropped my voice.

Violence and Disintegration in the Human Family

But in any case, this is revolution in the human family. It had its effect, you see, not only upon Adam and Eve. It brought not only death, and that means disintegration into the human personality, but it brought a revolution in the human family.

It brings death to the corporations because it has affected mankind organically and corporately. Hence, you see, in the immediate sequel to Genesis 3, in the immediate sequel, in the unfolding history of mankind, there are the Catalogue of Sins, which are indicative of the division into even families.

Here's a memo that you see the Catalogue of Sins. You've angry, you have malice, clearly in the case of Cain. Angry, malice, homicide, polygamy in the family of Cain. Violence. In time, of course, as far as history is concerned, but very soon in the record, you read, the wickedness of man was great.

The earth was filled with violence. All flesh had corrupted its way. The standpoint of this particular caption, the prevalence of violence. And then finally, 5, we have disintegration, revolution, if you will, but disintegration in man's own constitution.

You remember how that is stressed in Genesis 5, with the record of the longevity, always followed by the formula, except in the case of Enoch, and he died. So you see, the early chapters of Genesis, the principles, and all the subsequent biblical revelations, the importance in this respect of the latter part of Genesis 3, Genesis 5, and Genesis 6, is simply parallel to the importance which must be attached to Genesis 1 and 2 in like manner.

That's it. Now 3. Man has, in fact, as a consequence of 3, faced problems. Problems arising from the fall of man. Now, first of all, we have the ontological. Ontological problem. At least, that is what I call it.

Divine Foreordination and Human Responsibility

That's what others call it. Now, what is the problem here? Here it is simply the problem of the divine, at least basically, but basically the problem of the divine causality in relation, I didn't say the divine causality in itself, but the divine causality in relation to sense.

That's the focal point of the question. Divine causality in relation. That's the question. Is there divine causality in connection with sense? Is there? There are two propositions, two theses, that must be maintained in this connection.

And the first is, well, there are two propositions, two theses, that must be maintained in this connection. And the first is, the first thesis is that God foreordained the fall of our first parents. Foreordination, the fall of our first parents, was rendered certain of occurrence.

Rendered certain of occurrence. After all, the certainty of all futurism, we find in the foreordination of God. Isn't that right? The certainty attracted to all futurism, that is, to the occurrence of all future events, we find in the foreordination of God.

And not only did the divine foreordination ensure the certainty of the fall of man, the certainty of it as respects occurrence, not only did it ensure the certainty of the occurrence, but the fall of man occurred in the realm of God's all-controlling providence.

And therefore, the fall did not occur outside the sphere of God's foreordination and providence. Now, we are not expressly told that in connection with the fall. We are told that in Genesis 3, that the arch crime of human history occurred in accordance with the determinate purpose and foreknowledge of God.

In Genesis 3, chapter 4, verse 27, the determinate purpose and foreknowledge of God. And you can't find in the Older Scriptures stronger terms than those which occur in that text with reference to the determinate decree of God.

The determinate decree, that is, respecting the arch crime of human history, the crucifixion of Christ, is also true of all sin. And of course, the evidence establishing the all-inclusiveness of God's indeterminate will and of his providence, that there is no getting away from that fact, according to the teaching of Scripture.

But the second proposition that must be attended to, that is, that God is not the author of sin. Not the author of sin. That means that for sin as sinfulness, for sin as sinfulness, as violation of God's commandment, man alone, and he alone is responsible.

I repeat, for sin as sinfulness, as violation of the commandment of God, man alone is responsible, and he alone is the agent of execution. And hence, the responsibility for the act of sin, the guilty of the responsibility of the act as sinful and as involving guilt, rather than guilty, as involving guilt.

The first thing, with our first test, and with them, it is necessary, in order to get that rather clearly in mind, it is necessary to keep in view the relationship of these two propositions, the one to the other.

It was God alone who foreordained the sin of Adam, and it was in God's providence that it was accomplished, or at least that it occurred. And of course, as far as foreordination and providence are concerned, God alone is the agent, and he alone is the agent of God's providence.

This is God, we do not speak of man's providence, of Satan's providence. God alone is God's providence. Within divine decree, that is foreordination, within this sphere of divine decree and providence, agency and responsibility were real.

They were not, that is His agency and responsibility, were not abrogated, suspended, or curtailed. That is to say, God's foreordination determined the act. If the foreordination determined the act, it was accomplished in God's providence, but neither the foreordination nor the providence acted to deprive man of his freedom, responsibility and agency.

I will say that again. God's foreordination determined the act. The act was accomplished in God's providence, but neither the foreordination nor the providence acted to deprive man of his freedom, responsibility and agency.

Please don't take notes for a minute. I would go further than that if I were dealing with another topic. I am not going to go into that, but this is what I would say. If I were dealing with another topic and it is this, that not only was man's freedom, responsibility and agency fully conserved, fully preserved, fully maintained, fully exercised within the sphere of God's foreordination and providence, but also developing that knowledge is simply because there was this divine foreordination and the all-controlling providence of God that man took without any impairment of his freedom, responsibility and agency.

But that's not the point now, so I don't want to burden the consideration with it. It's simply that this foreordination and providence of God did not deprive man of his freedom, responsibility and agency.

Now there is the problem that we cannot name the divine decree and providence with certainty of occurrence, with certainty of occurrence, and yet from the standpoint of human responsibility, no interference, no interference with your impairment of this freedom and agency.

Providence of God, these two things are correlative. These two facts are correlative, certainty and freedom of occurrence, freedom of agency. These two facts are correlative and they are perfectly coherent in the foreordination and providence of God.

But we are not able so to analyze the interrelationship. And we are not able so to analyze the interrelationship. But we shall understand how they pass again and do not in any way impair the reality, the reality of either fact.

God's Secret Decree and Revealed Will

Well, Adele Swing, I think I can point at the difficulty, the problem, not to bring perplexity into our lives, but nevertheless to have the actual situation clearly in focus, you know. Something occurs by the decreed will of God that is in direct contradiction with His revealed will.

That is, if we say that God decreed His will, what He preceptively forbid, personifies the decree of God in reference to the first sin, personifies the decree of God, then it would say, this will assuredly come to pass, personify the precept, this thou shalt not differ from what it is all along the line of the fist, but it is more acutely felt in connection with the origin of man.

The Psychogenetic Problem and the Origin of Sin

It is more acutely felt because here we have the absolutely unique phenomenon, the absolutely unique event in human history, the origin of sin in the human race. The second problem, the psychogenetic.

I had the experience with students at Westminster Seminary that this gives far more occasion for questions than even the ontological. Because I think it is rather easy for students, at least at Westminster Seminary, to recognize the all-pervadingness of God's full ordination, the all-inclusiveness of His providence, and at the same time the complete responsibility of man for his sin.

But when we come to this question, I notice that there are always all sorts of difficulties arising in connection with it, and all sorts of difficulties. I am not blaming anybody for entertaining you.

What is the true sin of man? How could the heart, how could the senses of created, holy, and upright, the disposition of complex, which they have given themselves, be one of obedience and constitutive order?

Could this be the transition? I noted yesterday the first thing about first sin is that all sins proceed from and are determined by the disposition of complex, and it prevails through that, through tension.

And therefore, David, from his own psychology, and from David, what he has said, is the description. We simply have to say that the hearts of first sins change from one disposition into the very, what is the modern and religiously complex.

Why God Foreordained the Fall

How could it be? How could sin have any entertainment, logic, and have it only be? I can't answer the question. There it is. The third dispensational problem, the dispensational problem, that has nothing to do with dispensationalism, but with this question, why is God foreordaining the fall of mankind?