From a Calvinist to Calvinists -- was Adam the only living Arminian?

[edie19]

Perhaps we'll never know this side of glory; perhaps one day God will say, "Yes, Calvin was right, and here's the thing about Adam..." and we'll all say, "OHHH! That makes sense!"

There are so many things I'd like to question God about (i.e. how did Jonah survive in the belly of that fish?) and figure when I get to heaven I can. But realistically, when we're there - will we care? I think all those questions will pale when we're able to worship in the presence of our Lord and Savior.

And yes, God in His wisdom and sovereignty ordained that Adam sin. And even then, He had the solution to send His Son as our Redeemer.

edie

 

[cdevidal]

And yes, God in His wisdom and sovereignty ordained that Adam sin. And even then, He had the solution to send His Son as our Redeemer.

So you're saying -- in a simplistic way -- God passively allowed Adam to fall because He wanted to reveal the redeemer?

 

[cdevidal]

Adam chose to sin because he wanted to just as we do. Our sin nature does not "make" us sin. Not having that sin nature might have made it easier for him to resist temptation but he still had free will. Look at the millenium when the world is made perfect again and satan is bound, people still manage to turn from God. Why? because we have that free will and we want to do what we want to do. Pride is a very dangerous thing.

Is that the teaching of Calvinists or your own understanding?

 

[edie19]

So you're saying -- in a simplistic way -- God passively allowed Adam to fall because He wanted to reveal the redeemer?

I don't believe God does anything passively - and if it is something He ordained that means there was action on His part. He ordained that Adam would fall because He wanted to reveal the Redeemer. He did so to bring glory to Himself.

Do I have the theologic background to back up my statement. Nope. But I believe that God who not only spoke the universe into being but who knows when a sparrow falls from a tree had a perfect plan for Adam and can execute that plan without it making Him the author of sin.

 

[cdevidal]

I don't believe God does anything passively - and if it is something He ordained that means there was action on His part.

I agree, I was speaking of active coersion. We can sin when we don't do what we should, so passivity on our part is still an action. Passivity on God's allowance of the fall was, of course, still action. Just not active action.

 

[PETE_]

Is that the teaching of Calvinists or your own understanding?

Just my understanding, but I don't just pull things out of thin air.

 

[Rhetor]

I'd back Pandersen. God talks of allowing sin that grace might occur e.g the law causes sinful rebellion, but is allowed so that sin might be known and grace could thus be embraced. I think God allowed sin only inasmuch as its presence allowed greater good in the reavealing of his glory (eg judgement, tollerance, longsuffering, mercy esp in Christ) and no more.

 

[Rhetor]

In regards to was Adam an Arminian - no, he learnt his theology from God, so he embraced the Supralapsarian truth.

In regards to did Adam have a free will in the Arminian Sense - we are really discussing soft vs hard determinism. Ie can man rise above his environment, and work against means. If yes, then men are not externally determined into actions, but are only bound by their preferences and character. problem - what forms these, and is some aspect innate? Most reformed have gone for this (soft) as probably do I. Some, however, go for hard. Men are a part of a casual chain and cannot escape. see for instance J Edwards!.

The only caution is that Arminian Freewill believes in a liberty of indifference - that man can choose unaffected even by his own character - and no Reformed could hold this. We would say that Adam 's character was upright with the capacity to choose either way, whereas ours inasmuch as we desire evil is not free to choose other than what it wants, although it is free from external constraint (soft).

Btw go easy on us Hypers, Cdevidal. Many of the positions your links ascribe to us are not our position. Like how does Christian Civil Magistracy relate to the Free Offer?

 

[cdevidal]

In regards to did Adam have a free will in the Arminian Sense - we are really discussing soft vs hard determinism. Ie can man rise above his environment, and work against means. If yes, then men are not externally determined into actions, but are only bound by their preferences and character. problem - what forms these, and is some aspect innate? Most reformed have gone for this (soft) as probably do I. Some, however, go for hard. Men are a part of a casual chain and cannot escape. see for instance J Edwards!.

Could you please expound this?

The only caution is that Arminian Freewill believes in a liberty of indifference - that man can choose unaffected even by his own character - and no Reformed could hold this. We would say that Adam 's character was upright with the capacity to choose either way, whereas ours inasmuch as we desire evil is not free to choose other than what it wants, although it is free from external constraint (soft).

That is a great warning, but could you please expound the last sentence?

Btw go easy on us Hypers, Cdevidal. Many of the positions your links ascribe to us are not our position. Like how does Christian Civil Magistracy relate to the Free Offer?

Well I'm not exactly sure what you mean by Free Offer (I'm no theologan).

I apologize if those links do not represent your views as a hyper-Calvinist.

Nonetheless there are some who might represent themselves as hyper who would identify with those links, and those doctrines I wish to distance myself from, and yet non-Calvinists generally think that's what I believe. So I'll keep referring people to them as a way to differentiate those beliefs from mine.