I seem to remember Cornelius Van Til critiquing Arminian thinkers who claimed that Adam could only have been morally neutral at his creation, innocent at best. Van Til defended the Reformed view, that Adam was created truly righteous.
All this, however, is a dim memory.
Anyone have a Van Til quotation handy?
How about some other Reformed Orthodox source?
Can you explain the distinction between wholly innocent and actually righteous? It doesn’t make sense to me; since sin has the aspects of both commission and omission, then someone who is entirely without sin must have actively positive qualities (i.e., the opposite of sins of omission) — how can that be distinguished from righteousness?
I’m not sure if I can explain the difference in content. I think the point is that we need to be careful how we speak of Adam’s eschatological glorification as a “justification.” Sometimes, this seems to smudge into the idea that Adam had to become righteous, when he already was righteous. Degrading from “righteous” descriptions of Adam, to “innocent” descriptions makes me worry if there is a hidden or even unthinking agenda.