Can Calvinism reconcile God ordaining Adam to sin, and still allow Adam to have a free will?

[Dave L]

Can you rephrase this. "Free will saves and God gets the glory" is this what you meant.

Other than that i agree with this for the most part. I attribute extreme use of Calvinism to complacency. Other than that i have no disagreement with Calvinism.

Free will saves, not God, but it doesn't sound right to give yourself the glory. So they condescend a bit and say God saves, even though they don't depend on God more than they depend on their-selves.

 

[frogoon234]

Not in a future sense. In every sense.

Thats not biblical. Some people take Calvinism beyond what John Calvin intended. It hurts Jesus when we sin. Jesus exists outside of time but he still passes through time and his personality doesn't like it when people sin. We should treat reality and our decisions as though these things matter. Our beliefs to some extent effect our actions.

 

[frogoon234]

Free will saves, not God, but it doesn't sound right to give yourself the glory. So they condescend a bit and say God saves, even though they don't depend on God more than they depend on their-selves.

True.

 

[Hammster]

Thats not biblical. Some people take Calvinism beyond what John Calvin intended. It hurts Jesus when we sin. Jesus exists outside of time but he still passes through time and his personality doesn't like it when people sin. We should treat reality and our decisions as though these things matter. Our beliefs to some extent effect our actions.

To assert that God does things not for His glory is unbiblical.

One of two things happen when someone sins. For the elect, they receive mercy. For the reprobate, the wrath remains on him. Both things bring God glory.

 

[frogoon234]

To assert that God does things not for His glory is unbiblical.

One of two things happen when someone sins. For the elect, they receive mercy. For the reprobate, the wrath remains on him. Both things bring God glory.

I think we have two definitions of glory. Life is extremely complex and the book of Ezekiel chapter 18 says that "God/Jesus takes no pleasure when any man dies" (this includes second death). Second death is far worse than first death as you well know.

 

[His student]

I believe that because God is omniscient, He has perfect foreknowledge (without having to determine what happens), and thereby is still very much in control.

You talk as if Adam had independent existence apart from the Word of God and that he made choices within that self existence. That is not the picture we have in the scriptures of how the creation is in relation to it's creator.

Yes - God knew what Adam would do. But, more properly and clearly, He knew what Adam would do if and when God Himself acted in the various ways only God can and does act. In so choosing to act - God Himself predestined that what Adam would chose to do would indeed occur.

E.g. God could KNOW Adam was going to choose to sin (by his own choice ... without being decreed, ordained, or predetermined to do so by God);

God did indeed know what Adam would choose to do by his own choice. He predestined that Adam's choice would indeed occur in history. He did not make the choice for Adam. Adam, being created in the image of God, had relative free will within the boundaries of being the creation and not himself being God.

..... and therefore, (based upon His own foreknowledge), He also was fully prepared to respond to Adam's sin.
Meaning ... God was still in control.

Of course.

God knew full well, in advance, what He would do when Adam chose to sin just as God knew he would so choose if and when God Himself acted in His certain ways.

Since God is the only independent being and has complete omniscience of all things possible as well as all thing actual - He is the one Who is said to do any predestining of events which will take place in history.

God predestines all things which take place - including what we do in this life. And that - according to the clear and correct statements in the WCF - without "authoring" any sin or "doing violence" to the will of the creature.

Of course those who don't subscribe to the WCF are welcome to make their own comprehensive statements concerning these things. Only they should make sure they cover all the bases as the WCF does rather than simply papering over some of the issues involved in good and thorough systematic theology.

 

[frogoon234]

You talk as if Adam had independent existence apart from the Word of God and that he made choices within that self existence. That is not the picture we have in the scriptures of how the creation is in relation to it's creator.

Yes - God knew what Adam would do. But, more properly and clearly, He knew what Adam would do if and when God Himself acted in the various ways only God can and does act. In so choosing to act - God Himself predestined that what Adam would chose to do would indeed occur.

God did indeed know what Adam would choose to do by his own choice. He predestined that Adam's choice would indeed occur in history. He did not make the choice for Adam. Adam, being created in the image of God, had relative free will within the boundaries of being the creation and not himself being God.

Of course.

God knew full well, in advance, what He would do when Adam chose to sin just as God knew he would so choose if and when God Himself acted in His certain ways.

Since God is the only independent being and has complete omniscience of all things possible as well as all thing actual - He is the one Who is said to do any predestining of events which will take place in history.

God predestines all things which take place - including what we do in this life. And that - according to the clear and correct statements in the WCF - without "authoring" any sin or "doing violence" to the will of the creature.

Of course those who don't subscribe to the WCF are welcome to make their own comprehensive statements concerning these things. Only they should make sure they cover all the bases as the WCF does rather than simply papering over some of the issues involved in good and thorough systematic theology.

Some people work for a living. Some people have make alot of decisions on a daily basis. Some people take the John Calvin to extreme measures and build themselves an ivory tower. Its not a sin to live life as though the decisions we make are important. The consequences for bad decisions are really what we should be discussing or probably we would be better off leaving those consequences up to Jesus to decide.

 

[His student]

Some people have make alot of decisions on a daily basis. Some people take the John Calvin to extreme measures and build themselves an ivory tower.

I'm not sure what people take John Calvin to an extreme when making personal decisions. Every Calvinist I know of makes choices just as non-Calvinists do. The fact that their actions are predestined to occur is seldom thought of when making a choice.

I don't lay claim to the title "Calvinist" but never the less I am of a definite Reformed persuasion.

E.g. - I chose to have coffee this morning rather than hot chocolate. It never crossed my mind that my choice to have coffee instead of hot chocolate was predestined to occur - nor should it have. I only think of it now because I'm discussing theology.

Its not a sin to live life as though the decisions we make are important.

The decisions we make in life are important. Some more so than others. We should give more thought to those decisions which are more important.

The consequences for bad decisions are really what we should be discussing ...

We do give more thought to those decisions which can turn out to have bad consequences - rather than just being neutral.

......or probably we would be better off leaving those consequences up to Jesus to decide.

Actually, IMO, it is good that we understand the consequences for particular decisions in advance and then we can make a more informed decision.

 

[frogoon234]

I'm not sure what people take John Calvin to an extreme when making personal decisions. Every Calvinist I know of makes choices just as non-Calvinists do. The fact that their actions are predestined to occur is seldom thought of when making a choice.

I don't lay claim to the title "Calvinist" but never the less I am of a definite Reformed persuasion.

E.g. - I chose to have coffee this morning rather than hot chocolate. It never crossed my mind that my choice to have coffee instead of hot chocolate was predestined to occur - nor should it have. I only think of it now because I'm discussing theology.

The decisions we make in life are important. Some more so than others. We should give more thought to those decisions which are more important.

We do give more thought to those decisions which can turn out to have bad consequences - rather than just being neutral.

Actually, IMO, it is good that we understand the consequences for particular decisions in advance and then we can make a more informed decision.

thats fair. I'm sure you would agree with this. "Should we go on sinning so that grace may abound, God forbid" -Paul

There have been historical cases of people not fully thinking through issues and making bad decisions based on a lack of thought.

 

[Hammster]

I think we have two definitions of glory. Life is extremely complex and the book of Ezekiel chapter 18 says that "God/Jesus takes no pleasure when any man dies" (this includes second death). Second death is far worse than first death as you well know.

While He takes no pleasure, it still brings Him glory.

 

[frogoon234]

While He takes no pleasure, it still brings Him glory.

alright

 

[Dr. Jack]

Adam sinned because he wanted to. God provided all the reasons, including Adam's nature, that Adam freely responded to.

Let's unpack what you just said:

Adam sinned because he wanted to.

I wouldn't say he wanted to, but I will say that he did choose to. There are choices we make in life that are out necessity, not out of desire. We can address that more if you wish.

God provided all the reasons

This is where this gets interesting ... (I certainly hope you can provide answers to "how" these "reasons" worked to bring about Adam's decision to sin.

Please remember, what you are defending is that because God decreed, ordained, and or predetermined that Adam would sin in the Garden of Eden, God HAD TO therefore "provide reasons" limit Adam's choice to be the one choice that aligned with the predetermined plan of God.

including Adam's nature

You do understand that Adam did NOT have a sin nature. Adam's nature was neutral. Something had to cause Adam to make the decision to sin.

You have just suggested with the preceding words that God provided the reasons that caused Adam to fulfill the predetermined decree of God.

This then is what needs to be reconciled:

Because God not only had foreknowledge of the sin of Adam, but also predetermined the outcome of Adam's choice, any and all "reasons" God "provided" which aided in the decision making process must be considered as coercion.

Yes, Adam made a choice, but that choice was was caused by circumstances deliberately placed in Adam's timeline to bring about a particular result; which as the WCF clearly states was predetermined by God. Hence, Adam effectively had no actual choice at all.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I understand. But there is a problem. For the Holy Spirit to do anything for a depraved sinner, there has to be some form of regeneration. But how can there be any form of regeneration to allow the sinner to be able to make a choice before he has made a choice for Christ in order to become regenerated? It seems to me to be two opposites. A person needs to be regenerated to be able to make the choice to become regenerated. Doesn't make sense.

This is solely based upon the presupposition that man is a dichotomous being rather than a trichotomous being.

 

[Dave L]

Let's unpack what you just said:



I wouldn't say he wanted to, but I will say that he did choose to. There are choices we make in life that are out necessity, not out of desire. We can address that more if you wish.



This is where this gets interesting ... (I certainly hope you can provide answers to "how" these "reasons" worked to bring about Adam's decision to sin.

Please remember, what you are defending is that because God decreed, ordained, and or predetermined that Adam would sin in the Garden of Eden, God HAD TO therefore "provide reasons" limit Adam's choice to be the one choice that aligned with the predetermined plan of God.



You do understand that Adam did NOT have a sin nature. Adam's nature was neutral. Something had to cause Adam to make the decision to sin.

You have just suggested with the preceding words that God provided the reasons that caused Adam to fulfill the predetermined decree of God.

This then is what needs to be reconciled:

Because God not only had foreknowledge of the sin of Adam, but also predetermined the outcome of Adam's choice, any and all "reasons" God "provided" which aided in the decision making process must be considered as coercion.

Yes, Adam made a choice, but that choice was was caused by circumstances deliberately placed in Adam's timeline to bring about a particular result; which as the WCF clearly states was predetermined by God. Hence, Adam effectively had no actual choice at all.

Who made Adam sin against his will? Did the snake hold a gun on him?

 

[Dr. Jack]

Let’s look at it this way. There were things God could have done to prevent sin. One, He could have never made a law. Two, He could have put a wall around the tree. Three, He could have never created Satan. Four, He could have prevented Satan from entering the garden. Five, He could have intervened before Adam sinned.

Etc.

You are really missing the point ... It was neither God's purpose to make Adam sin, nor to keep Adam from sinning ... it was His purpose to allow Adam to reason using the information provided by 1) Himself; and 2) any other source. While God had foreknowledge of Adam's choice, His knowledge was not causative in any way ... that is the difference between indeterminate foreknowledge and determinate foreknowledge.

 

[Hammster]

You are really missing the point ... It was neither God's purpose to make Adam sin, nor to keep Adam from sinning ... it was His purpose to allow Adam to reason using the information provided by 1) Himself; and 2) any other source. While God had foreknowledge of Adam's choice, His knowledge was not causative in any way ... that is the difference between indeterminate foreknowledge and determinate foreknowledge.

The greatest event in history was the cross. I refuse to believe that it was God responding to something outside of His control. That makes Him anemic in so many ways.

 

[Dr. Jack]

A kid dangles a carrot in front of a goat pulling his wagon. The goat wants the carrot and wants to follow the direction the kid dangles it in. The kid causes the outcome based on the goat's nature and free choices.

Does the kid then beat the goat to death for going in the direction the kid caused it to go?

 

[Dave L]

Does the kid then beat the goat to death for going in the direction the kid caused it to go?

Only if the goat is sinful and deserves it.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Why doesn’t that make sense? I read passages like Ezekiel 36, Romans 3, John 3, Titus 3, etc, and see that there’s really no way that the unregenerate would choose to love Someone whom they hate. It’s because of the new heart that we choose to love God.

This thread doesn't deal with man's nature post fall; it deals with Adam's nature prefall.

 

[Dr. Jack]

It's only an illustration to show God's sovereignty and our free will in action. We always freely choose for the reasons God uses to control us.

There is an old saying ...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

The answer to that saying is ...

But you can salt the oats.


By salting the oats, the owner of the horse knows that even though the horse has NO desire to drink water, he can change the will of the horse by salting its oats.

When the owner salts the oats, the horse becomes thirsty. The owner uses his knowledge of the horse to coerce the horse into changing its will concerning drinking water.

You have stated that God "controlled" Adam's will in the same manner.

Now here is the bad part:

The owner of the horse coerces the horse into drinking water to the benefit of the horse. God controlled Adam to not only the detriment of Adam's soul, but to the detriment of every single soul of his posterity.