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

Dave L said:

Could you also ask "what was the motive behind the questioning reply"?

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll play along, What was the motive behind the questioning reply"?

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Great article by Sam Storms, I found four parts, and put them all together into one MS Word document in attachment below, for anyone interested.

Click to expand...

I noticed when he addressed "spirit", the Calvinistic bias kicked in. Storms has other theological issues as well (IMO), such as him being Amillennial.

His Calvinistic bias was first presented in the following statement:

"Is Trichotomy a legitimate evangelical option? Yes. There is nothing inherently heretical or dangerous in understanding human nature as comprised of three faculties: body, soul, and spirit. There is enough ambiguity in certain biblical texts to allow for trichotomy. But is it the most likely or the most probable interpretation of the many biblical texts and terms noted below? In my opinion, no."

Especially this one sentence:

"There is enough ambiguity in certain biblical texts to allow for trichotomy."

"[A]mbiguity", really?

Dave L said:

Why confuse what you say by cluttering the landscape with needless debate?

Click to expand...

Isn't that what your contributions are, "needless debate"?

His student said:

I said,
"That is a fact. But He did not make you do it nor did He in any way interfered with your free choice to do it or not do it.

I have - many times. But it seems you don't listen.

The doctrine of omniscience says that God has known from eternity past exactly what the consequences would be if and when He Himself actd in a certain way or in various ways. Those consequences often include the choices made by men - be they good or bad.

The reason we say, "if and when He Himself acts in a certain way or in various ways" is that God, being among other things, omnipresent - has to act in various ways or nothing other than Himself will be in existence to happen. He is, after all, God and everything is created by His Word, for His Word, and in His Word everything has its existence.

The doctrine also says that He has always known possibilities just as vividly as actualities. (As in "if the miracles that were done in such and such a place #1 were to have been done in such and such a place #2 - that people in that place would have repented etc.)

The doctrine of the aseity of God says, among other things, that God is not constrained by anything other than His own nature and will to do anything - such as choose X rather than Y or Y rather than X.

God chooses to do X rather than Y - knowing full well every single consequence that will ensue within that paradigm without exception as opposed to those which would assuredly ensue under the other paradigm.

In the choosing of His own free will to create and sustain paradigm X and acting in a trillion and one or more ways to create exactly that paradigm --- God predestines exactly what He knew full well would surely occur within that paradigm.

Those things often include the choices made by men like Adam. Therefore - God predestined that the choice made by Adam would indeed occur.

Since God gave Adam free will and doesn't interfere with that free will in any way - God is said by Reformed theologians to have "by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

It's all quite easy to understand and definitely quite scriptural. Basic well established doctrines inform other more advanced and difficult doctrines. That's the way it works in a good systematic theology as well it should.

The doctrine of omniscience, even setting aside the doctrines of omnipresence and aseity and others, demands a belief in the predestination of all things which occur in God's creation. In no way does it negate or do away with the doctrine of the free will of mankind. But rather those free will choices establish and bring to pass what God has predestined to occur.

The only possible reason you or anyone else would disparage these obvious truths is that you are so offended by certain Calvinistic doctrines (such as perhaps election) that you will ignore common sense and scriptural truth in order to keep from siding with those dreaded Calvinists on anything at all.


I do not lay claim to the title Calvinist. I disagree with them in several areas. But I do not shy away from saying when they have something right. And in this case they are spot on.

In your case though you will not. "I am of Paul - I am of Apollos", and never the twain shall meet - to your shame IMO.

The only way you can refute their strong doctrine in this particular area is to misrepresent what they teach - which, it seems, you have been more than willing to do.

Click to expand...

I have decided to present you another excerpt from the WCF to show you the problem we have with contradictory statements within the WCF.

"II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in his ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

- Westminster Confession: Chapter 5, Section 2-4

Notice in section II "he orders them to fall out", and in section IV, "that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends".

So we have "ordering, and governing " of "the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men".

I am fully aware that the end of the statement says, "yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin".

How can one "order and govern" sin, and not be the "author or approve of sin"?

That is like me saying"I'm going to order and govern the death of my neighbor, to it's very end, yet not be the author or approver of that order".

Let a mob boss pull that off in court and see how it turns out!

Dave L said:

What do you think it was?

Click to expand...

You tell me!

Hammster said:

You have no bias, correct?

Click to expand...

Yes, toward Biblical truth.

When Scripture presents information in a way which makes that truth undeniable, it is best not to reject that truth.

Let's consider what the Scripture states about the eternal state of body, soul, and spirit:

1) Body:
I think we agree that the bodies of those that are saved (which I believe to be what is being referred to by the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20:6).

I also believe that there is a resurrection preceding the Great White judgment for the lost. (Which would be the second resurrection.)

Either way, the existence of the "body" is not in question.

2) Soul:
21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation

I believe the above text shows that the souls of the redeemed spend eternity with Christ; while the souls of the lost spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

3) Spirit:
12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Ecclesiastes

Solomon is speaking of the time when we get old, and then die. The dust clearly refers to the flesh, but when he says "the spirit", he uses the Hebrew rûach, meaning "wind", or "breath".

It is the same Hebrew word used in 1 Samuel 16 when speaking concerning Saul.

16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.16:15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. 1 Samuel

This is clearly NOT a reference to the word "soul" which is rendered from the Hebrew nephesh, which is used in texts such as Genesis 2:7, and Ezekiel 18:4, and 18:20.

Now consider again the words of Solomon:

12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Ecclesiastes

The HS had Solomon use the word "spirit" rather than "soul". We both agree that the "soul" of the lost spends eternity in the Lake of Fire; but in this text God clearly states that the "spirit" (not the soul) shall return unto God who gave it.

Why? Because the main purpose of the spirit of man is just as Sam Storms states in his article ...

"In some 40 passages pneuma refers to the human spirit or that dimension of human personality that “belongs to, or interacts with, the spiritual realm” (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 3:807). It is by means of our “spirit” that we encounter God (cf. Rom. 8:16; Gal. 6:18; Phil. 4:23; 2 Tim. 4:22; Philemon 25; Heb. 4:12; Jas. 4:5) and are open and responsive to him (Matt. 5:3; Luke 1:47; Rom. 1:9; 1 Pet. 3:4; see also Mark 2:8; 8:12; John 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:13)."

After man leaves the physical realm, if he is in the presence of Jesus, he is in the eternal realm. If he is in Hell, he no longer needs to communicate with God. (After all, that is what the second death is ... separation from God.)

5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians

In this text Paul clearly identifies the three distinct parts: 1) spirit; 2) soul; and 3) body.

Many Calvinists present the argument that this is a salutation, and cannot therefore be applied in a a theological manner.

4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews

I included the preceding verses to show that the context is most definitely theological.

Paul uses the phrase: "piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit"

ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐνεργής, καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον, καὶ διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς τὲ καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ 4:12

Notice: ψυχῆς τὲ καὶ πνεύματος (soul and spirit).

Solomon and Paul make a clear distinction between the spirit, and the soul ... shouldn't we?

Hammster said:

Unlike Sam Storms who obviously is biased towards Reformed Theology.

Click to expand...

Would you care to addressed the Scriptures I presented, and tell me where my understanding is in error?

Hammster said:

Unlike Sam Storms who obviously is biased towards Reformed Theology.

Click to expand...

One would think with all the research he did, he would have noticed the differences in the original languages.

Hammster said:

One more. Probably the best one.

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/42761/295175/1142647529713/trichotomy.pdf?token=OOoHgowZ+RtNwKyzhhebGM7nLx4=

Click to expand...

Okay, I read an enormous amount of material ... first quickly, then in a very detailed manner.

The first article was more against the trichotomous view than for it. The second seemed to lean in favor of the trichotomous view, while the third acknowledged the trichotomous view, but on page 4 seemed to present al warning against it.

The interesting thing about this is that the 2nd and third articles presented clear evidence that the soul ad spirit are separate, although I believe the application was not accurate.

The Scriptures say clearly that the soul, not the spirit dies. Ezekiel 18:4 & 20. Yes, the soul is of a spiritual nature, but it is clearly the soul in the above texts that dies, not the spirit as presented in the third article.

The point is simple, even when the soul is dead, man can still communicate with God through his spirit. Furthermore, even after Adam fell (and therefore had a dead soul), he still communicated with God.

Cain after making an offering to God that God did not respect, spoke to God. Then after killing Abel, was still communicating with God.

Hence, the third article is in error that the spirit of man dies, because Scripture states otherwise.


Please understand, I base my beliefs upon what I see in Scripture, not what commentators say. My undergraduate training was Dispensationalism, but that teaching left me with many questions. Then I continued my education, but in Covenant Theology to see the other side of the street.

Salvation has always been by grace, (against what Dispensationalism teaches), but, I also see in Scripture where man has a free will. Why do we have Paul wrestling within himself in Roman's 7. Why did Paul say to believers that they should not "grieve" the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 4:30?

This thread addresses the issue that Adam's actions were not decreed, or as the WCF states in chapter 5, sections 2-4, "ordered and governed" by God. It furthermore states that this participation by God was not passive. (The wording clearly states that God played an active role in the original sin through His provision.) Read it.

Our beliefs must be based on Scripture.

Hammster said:

And I posted the links so that one, people could read the truth about the erroneous view of trichotomy. And two, to show that one can still be reformed and hold that view.

Click to expand...

But only if they say the spirit of man dies rather than the soul, which contradicts Scripture, as I explained.