Free Will, Predeterminism, and Predestination

[trophy33]

(The first) Adam's guilt is imputed to all men born of him (Ro 5:12-15),

I checked the text and it does not say that Adam's guilt is imputed to anybody... Maybe you meant something else, like an inclination to sin?

 

[Clare73]

And yet they still managed to sin.

Iranaeus is considered to be orthodox by all of the apostolic churches. Read what he wrote here.

Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience,

Iranaeus is no more authoritative than any other Christian.
Our authority for God's truth is his word written.
That is the one and only rule by which we measure doctrine.
I accept only appeals to the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16), not appeals to men.

God stated that Adam did not know evil until he experienced it in disobeying (Ge 3:22).

that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God's command.

Evidently Iranaeus understood that Adam & Eve possessed a sinful nature from the very beginning.

"Evidently" only if you think a totally free will, no sin influencing it, is unable to choose evil.
The will is not free if it cannot choose both good or evil.

Your error is in thinking that you must have a sinful nature in order to choose sin, in order to love the creature more than the Creator.
And that is a denial of Adam's completely free will, which means the unfettered ability to choose either good or evil in his morally free nature.

No, Adam had a free will, not inclined nor influenced by anything other than what his disposition (which governs the will) preferred.
His clear-headed choice was Eve over God. He had the power to choose otherwise, but Eve was more important to him than God.
Adam had a choice to make between two good but conflicting objects, love of God and love of wife.
He chose disobedience to God.

They were able to choose to do both good and evil,

Which does not require a sinful nature, only a completely free will, which free will by definition requires the abilility to choose both good or evil.

a quality given to them by God Himself. I’m not the one disputing orthodoxy. It’s your theology that is unorthodox. Calvinism has been refuted by every single apostolic church that still exists.

What does "Calvinism" have to do with it?

We are discussing Scripture, not some "ism."

 

[Clare73]

I checked the text and it does not say that Adam's guilt is imputed to anybody... Maybe you meant something else, like an inclination to sin?

Have you dealt with the dilemma posed by Paul in Ro 5:12-15; i.e.,
there was no law with a death penalty between Adam and Moses, as there was in the Garden with Adam,
where there is no law, there is no sin taken into account,
where there is no sin taken into account, there is no death (Ro 6:23),
yet all died between Adam and Moses even though they did not sin, because there was no law with death penalty to sin against.
So of what sin did they all die?

They died of the sin of (the first) Adam imputed to all those born of him, (Ro 5:12-15),
just as the righteousness of (the second Adam) Christ is imputed by faith to all those born of him (Ro 5:18-19), and
just as righteousness was imputed by faith to Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3), and is imputed to those in Christ by faith (Ro 4:1-11).

 

[trophy33]

Have you dealt with the dilemma posed by Paul in Ro 5:12-15; i.e.,
there was no law with a death penalty between Adam and Moses, as there was in the Garden with Adam,
where there is no law, there is no sin,
where there is no sin, there is no death (Ro 6:23),
yet all died between Adam and Moses even though they did not sin, because there was no law to sin against.
So of what sin did they all die?

They died of the sin of (the first) Adam imputed to all those born of him, (Ro 5:12-15),
just as the righteousness of (the second Adam) Christ is imputed by faith to all those born of him (Ro 5:18-19), and
just as righteousness was imputed by faith to Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3), and is imputed to those in Christ by faith (Ro 4:1-11).

It seems to me you are saying the opposite of what is in the text.

For example, you say: "where there is no law, there is no sin"

While the text says: "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given" (Rom 5:13, NIV)

Thats why its difficult to make sense of what you are saying.

 

[Clare73]

It seems to me you are saying the opposite of what is in the text.

For example, you say: "where there is no law, there is no sin"

Do I say that, or does Ro 5:13 say: ". . .sin is not taken into account when there is no law."
If sin is not taken into account, then they are not held guilty of sin.

While the text says: "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given" (Rom 5:13, NIV)

My NIV does not say, "To be sure."

Yes, the text states: "sin was in the world before the law was given" (Ro 5:13),
and the rest of that text states: " sin is not taken into account when there is no law;" i.e., no one is counted guilty of sin (and subject to its death penalty).
So that, where there is no law to sin against, there is no sin (and, therefore, no death). . .and yet all died between Adam and Moses.
So of what sin were they guilty?

That's why its difficult to make sense of what you are saying.

But is it what I am saying, or what the text is saying?

Have you read Ro 5:13: "sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account when there is no law."?

 

[BNR32FAN]

We are not condemned because of our nature, we are condemned because Adam's sin/guilt is imputed to all men born of (the first) Adam (Ro 5:12-15), just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to all men born of (the second Adam) Christ (Ro 4:1-11, Ro 5:18-19).

Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that sin is imputed upon anyone. Ezekiel 18:20 makes that clear. Romans 5 does not say that everyone is condemned for Adam’s sin it says that our condemnation is a RESULT of his sin. Death came to all BECAUSE ALL SINNED, not because Adam sinned.

How can you read Ro 5:12-15 and omit the heart of the dilemma it presents; i.e., there was no law carrying the death penalty between Adam and Moses, and where there is no law, there is no sin, yet all died because of sin (Ro 6:23)?
For what sin did they die?
They died because of Adam's sin imputed to all those born of (the first) Adam.

Did Cain not sin when he killed able?

“Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.””
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭6‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Thru the dialog between God and Cain we can conclude that Cain knew what sin was. We can also deduce by Cain’s reaction to God speaking to him that this was not his first conversation with God. Cain obviously didn’t seem to be the least bit surprised by God addressing him directly. Cain’s reaction seems to be quite nonchalant conversing with God, not a reaction one would expect from conversing with God for the first time. The scriptures don’t record any previous conversations between God & Cain but we can deduce that Cain knew what sin was and most likely from previous conversations with God.

Why do you think God brought upon the flood?

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

God brought about the flood because of man’s sin, so evidently there was a law that was given before the flood. After Cain killed able God commanded that anyone who killed Cain would be punished. So killing Cain was considered a sin. If Noah had refused to build the ark that would’ve been a sin. When Noah got off the ark after the flood God commanded him not to eat meat with blood. He also commanded that man shall not shed another man’s blood. These are just a few examples of laws that God gave before the Mosaic law.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It is not "my theology," it is the authoritative apostolic teaching of the NT.

Everyone knows that your theology has been refuted by every single church established by the apostles. It is not apostolic teaching.

Ezekiel states the son will not inherit the guilt of the father.
Adam's sin is not inherited, it is imputed by God (Ro 5:12-18), with the result that
all are by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).

What Bible version are you using that uses the word “inherit” or “guilt”? Your paraphrasing but you need to take a closer look at what was actually written.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“The son will NOT BEAR THE PUNISHMENT for the father’s inequity”. The righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. In other words one man is not punished for another man’s sin, each man will be punished for his own sin. Hence sin is not imputed, ever. Romans 5 doesn’t say anything about imputed sin. You’re injecting it into the passage. The word used is “resulted” not “imputed”. Resulted can mean thru a chain of events, it can’t in this case mean that we are punished for Adam’s sin because that would directly contradict God’s own words in Ezekiel 18:20. If Ezekiel 18:20 didn’t specifically state that each person is punished for his own sins then your theology could be plausible but because it contradicts Ezekiel 18:20 it is not plausible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Iranaeus is no more authoritative than any other Christian.

Iranaeus was an early second century bishop who knew more about the early church than we ever will. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John Zebedee. These men had access to the original manuscripts and Polycarp had the opportunity to be taught directly by an apostle of Christ. Iranaeus was taught by Polycarp. So Polycarp had access to way more information than we have from the scriptures. He was able to talk with and ask questions to one of the 12, possibly even other apostles as well and pass that knowledge onto his disciples. I have a lot more confidence in the accuracy of an early second century bishop’s writings than a 16th century pastor’s writings when it comes to the subject of scriptural interpretation and what the early church actually taught.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Our authority for God's truth is his word written.
That is the one and only rule by which we measure doctrine.

Amen but when it comes to interpretation of the scriptures the early church writers carry more weight than a 16th century theologian.

 

[Clare73]

Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that sin is imputed upon anyone.

You do not deal with the Scriptures presented which present such.

Ezekiel 18:20 makes that clear. Romans 5 does not say that everyone is condemned for Adam’s sin it says that our condemnation is a RESULT of his sin. Death came to all BECAUSE ALL SINNED, not because Adam sinned.

(The first) Adam's sin/guilt is not inherited by birth, it is imputed by God (Ro 5:12-15, Ro 5:18-19) to all those born of Adam,
just as (the second Adam) Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those born of Christ by faith (Ro 4:1-11, Ro 5:18-19), and
just as rghteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3).

Did Cain not sin when he killed able?

Yes, Cain sinned (sin was in the world), but according to Ro 5:13, because there was no law of God carrying the death penalty, Cain's sin was not taken into account (counted against him) for death/mortality.

“Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.””
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭6‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Indeed, but his sin did not count against him, thereby causing his mortality (Ro 5:13).
Your disagreement is with Ro 5:12-15, not with me.
Until you understand it correctly; i.e., resolving the issues/dilemma presented, you will not understand the imputation of Adam's sin.

Thru the dialog between God and Cain we can conclude that Cain knew what sin was. We can also deduce by Cain’s reaction to God speaking to him that this was not his first conversation with God. Cain obviously didn’t seem to be the least bit surprised by God addressing him directly. Cain’s reaction seems to be quite nonchalant conversing with God, not a reaction one would expect from conversing with God for the first time. The scriptures don’t record any previous conversations between God & Cain but we can deduce that Cain knew what sin was and most likely from previous conversations with God.

Why do you think God brought upon the flood?

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

God brought about the flood because of man’s sin, so evidently there was a law that was given before the flood. After Cain killed able God commanded that anyone who killed Cain would be punished. So killing Cain was considered a sin. If Noah had refused to build the ark that would’ve been a sin. When Noah got off the ark after the flood God commanded him not to eat meat with blood. He also commanded that man shall not shed another man’s blood. These are just a few examples of laws that God gave before the Mosaic law.

None of which has anything to do with what is presented in Ro 5:12-15; i.e., no law of God carrying the death penalty was in force between Adam and Moses and, therefore, no sin causing mortality was taken into account against anyone, so there should have been no death at all between Adam and Moses, and yet they all died.
So of what sin did they die?
They died of the sin of Adam imputed to all those born of Adam, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed by faith to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11, 5:18-19), and as righteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith (Ge 15:6; Ro 4:3), and of such imputation (guilt, righteousness) sinful Adam was the pattern for the righteous Christ (Ro 5:14).

 

[Clare73]

Everyone knows that your theology has been refuted by every single church established by the apostles. It is not apostolic teaching.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

What Bible version are you using that uses the word “inherit” or “guilt”? Your paraphrasing but you need to take a closer look at what was actually written.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“The son will NOT BEAR THE PUNISHMENT for the father’s inequity”. The righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. In other words one man is not punished for another man’s sin, each man will be punished for his own sin. Hence sin is not imputed, ever. Romans 5 doesn’t say anything about imputed sin. You’re injecting it into the passage. The word used is “resulted” not “imputed”. Resulted can mean thru a chain of events, it can’t in this case mean that we are punished for Adam’s sin because that would directly contradict God’s own words in Ezekiel 18:20. If Ezekiel 18:20 didn’t specifically state that each person is punished for his own sins then your theology could be plausible but because it contradicts Ezekiel 18:20 it is not plausible.

The word "inherit" may not be used but its meaning; "to receive from one's ancestors or, by extension, from one's predecessors" is used (Ex 20:5, Eze 18:20).
Just as the word "sovereign" is not itself in the Bible, but its definition is everywhere of God (e.g., Dan 4:35).

Likewise with "guilt" - "fact of violating a law and involving penalty."
Adam violated the law and we are involved in the penalty (Ro 5:18).

I find it easier to use the words themselves, rather than their definitions.

 

[Clare73]

Iranaeus was an early second century bishop who knew more about the early church than we ever will. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John Zebedee. These men had access to the original manuscripts and Polycarp had the opportunity to be taught directly by an apostle of Christ. Iranaeus was taught by Polycarp. So Polycarp had access to way more information than we have from the scriptures. He was able to talk with and ask questions to one of the 12, possibly even other apostles as well and pass that knowledge onto his disciples. I have a lot more confidence in the accuracy of an early second century bishop’s writings than a 16th century pastor’s writings when it comes to the subject of scriptural interpretation and what the early church actually taught.

Nothing of which Iranaeus received from his sources would be in disagreement with the NT Scriptures, which we also have and by which we can measure everything.

You still have not adequately dealt with Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and the issues it raises. . .and thereby leaving a hole in your theology.

 

[Clare73]

Amen but when it comes to interpretation of the scriptures the early church writers carry more weight than a 16th century theologian.

Nope, the text itself in the context of all Scripture carries all the weight.

 

[zoidar]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

You can hardly accuse them of not trying to Biblically demonstrate their case, can you?

It's not "my theology," it is authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit, right?

 

[Clare73]

You can hardly accuse them of not trying to Biblically demonstrate their case, can you?

I have no idea what their "case" is. I know only what the poster stated.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit, right?

Right. . .the Biblical demonstration, Ro 5:18, was made in post #111.

 

[zoidar]

I have no idea what their "case" is. I know only what the poster stated.

Right. . .the Biblical demonstration, Ro 5:18, was made in post #111.

That's how you show your teaching is NT apostolic teaching? Ok? Not that different from what they are doing imo.

Btw, in post #111 you quote Ephesians 3:15. Did you get the right verse?

 

[Clare73]

That's how you show your teaching is NT aposotlic teaching? Ok? Not that different from what they are doing imo.

Are you not understanding the simple statements. . ."the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (born of Adam). . ."the result of one act of righteousness was justifcation that brings life for all men" (born of Christ) in Ro 5:18?

Does any of the above disagree with NT teaching?
Is not all of the above precisely NT teaching?

What are you not understanding?

 

[zoidar]

Are you not understanding the simple statements. . ."the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (born of Adam). . ."the result of one act of righteousness was justifcation that brings life for all men" (born of Christ) in Ro 5:18?

Does any of the above disagree with NT teaching?
Is not all of the above precisely NT teaching?

What are you not understanding?

I don't have a problem with you explaining Scripture from your heart's understanding and with intention of being apostolic. That is all good! It's just when you say that your teaching is NT apostolic teaching, and not your understanding of the NT apostolic teaching I react.

I think we have the same understanding of Rom 5:18. The difference is that you think those that are brought life are elect unbelievers, where I think it refers to believers that are brought life through Christ.

 

[Clare73]

I don't have a problem with you explaining Scripture from your heart's understanding and with intention of being apostolic. That is all good! It's just when you say that your teaching is NT apostolic teaching, and not your understanding of the NT apostolic teaching I react.

I think we have the same understanding of Rom 5:18. The difference is that you think those that are brought life are elect unbelievers, where I think it refers to believers that are brought life through Christ.

Justification is for the saved, not the unsaved.
One is saved (i.e., sin remitted) from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) and condemnation (Ro 5:18), then one is justified (declared forensically righteous), both by faith.

 

[zoidar]

Justification is for the saved, not the unsaved.

Agree with you.

One is saved; i.e., sin remitted, from God's wrath (Ro 5:9), then one is justified (declared forensically righteous), both by faith.

Both? Isn't that the same thing?