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 is creatable. “_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_” (_Ps. 51:10_); “_Incline my heart unto thy testimonies_” (_Ps. 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 have 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 came 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 _1 Cor. 8:3_—“_if any man loveth God, the same_ [God] _is known by him_”; _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 be, not simply ability to be like God, but actual likeness.