Free Will, Determinism, and Compatiblism

[JonC]

I am opening this thread to continue a discussion that was concluded a few days ago with the closing of a thread. But I will keep (or will try to keep) the thread on topic and “honest”. What is being discussed is not the "problem of evil", but the existence and extent of free will and determinism, and whether or not they are compatible.

It seems that we have three choices when it comes to Determinism, Free Will, and Compatibilism.

1. Our choices are predetermined, there is no such thing as free will.
   
   
2. Our choices are free from all determination and constraint. Their outcome is not predetermined.
   
   
3. The outcome of our choices are predetermined and we choose freely.

Compatibilism claims that determinism and free will are compatible, with the caveat that Compatibilists may define “free will” differently (like those who hold to determinism, Compatibilists deny the existence of libertarian free will). Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the constraints of both human nature and God. Free Will Theists hold that libertarian freedom is necessary for moral responsibility (and I agree, except for the “libertarian” part). If my choice is determined by anything, even my own desires, wants, needs, etc. then they cannot be free choices.

I am a Compatibilist. I believe that God is both Creator and Sustainer. Our wills are bound, so to speak, by our nature. Our nature is influenced by many factors (our psychology, worldview, cultural norms, ideologies, and our experiences, to name a few). I believe that God is a God of means. God is sovereign, to include a sovereignty that extends to those factors that will contribute to our nature and influence our decisions.

I believe that all events are determined by God (theological determinism), that events are normally necessitated by the laws of nature(casual determinism) as a means through which God works in both sustaining creation and working all things in accordance to his will. But I believe that within this system of determined outcomes, men possess free will in that their choices are not made by compulsion. Men choose freely. I do not view determinism and free will to be contradictory.

To clarify a couple of misconceptions from another thread - Compatiblism is not "neo-Calvinism", or "neo" anything. It is not about reconciling God to the existence of evil. It is about the existence of free will, or the capability of men to make free choices, when the outcome is determined by an outside factor (God, nature, desire, norms, etc.).

 

[Iconoclast]

I would offer a more simple explanation.
There is no free will.
We do make choices as a free moral agent.
Our will is bound by our nature.
Upon glorification we will no longer be able to sin.

this is helpful from the reformed reader;
Chapter Three

Free Will and Free Agency



In the last two chapters we have considered free will and man’s four-fold state. A brief summary will be helpful as we continue:

1. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well pleasing to God; but that state was mutable, or changeable, so that he was able to fall from it.
   
   
2. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has entirely lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; therefore, as a natural man, being altogether averse to that good, and dead in sin, he is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself or to prepare himself for salvation.
   
   
3. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet, by reason of his remaining corruption, he also wills that which is evil.
   
   
4. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only. Any study of the will of man is incomplete without some explanation of the difference between free will and free agency. I am using free as meaning “independent, sovereign, autonomous,” that is, “not subject to the rule or control of another.”
   

An agent is “one who acts, performs an act, or has power to act—a moving force.” Man is a free moral agent, but he does not have a free will. Man is only free to act according to his nature, and he was born with a sinful nature (see Ps. 5 1:5).

One does not pursue the study of free will and free agency very far until he comes head on with an apparent contradiction (note well, I said “apparent”). We must, in all candor, acknowledge these apparent contradictions. They deserve some serious, thoughtful consideration. For example, we must address God’s commands and man’s inability—God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2;
Thus the Arminian and the Calvinist differ on their qualifying conditions of what makes up a free will. The Calvinist believes the man is free to choose and act in accordance with his nature. The Arminian, with his Pelagian roots denying moral depravity, believes that the will can make choices which are completely untainted by his nature and thus has a “free will.” In contrast, the Calvinist believes man is a free agent—free to act according to his own nature.

Free agency is not to be confused with “free will.” Because of the fall, men have lost their ability—the will—to obey God, but they are just as responsible to God to obey perfectly His commands. Thus Spurgeon could say, “I dread more than anything your being left to your own free will.” Arminianism, alongside hyper-Calvinisrn, argues that sinners cannot be required to do what they are not able to do, namely, to believe in Christ for salvation, since the ability to believe belongs only to the elect and is only given at a time determined by the Spirit of God. They say, “For a preacher to call all his hearers to immediate repentance and faith is to deny both human depravity and sovereign grace.” So they say.

Spurgeon says this on the implications of free will:

According to the free will scheme, the Lord intends good, but he must wait like a lackey on his own creature to know what his intention is; God willeth good and would do it but he cannot because he has an unwilling man who will not have God’s good thing carried into effect. What do ye, sirs, but drag the Eternal from his throne and lift up into it that fallen creature, man; for man, according to that theory, nods and his nod is destiny. You must have a destiny somewhere; it must either be as God wills or as man wills. If it be as God wills, then Jehovah sits as sovereign upon his throne of glory, and all hosts obey him, and the world is safe; if not God, then you put man there to say, “I will,” or “I will not; if I will it, I will enter heaven; if I will it, I will despise the grace of God; if I will it, I will conquer the Holy Spirit, for I am stronger than God and stronger than omnipotence; if I will it, I will make the blood of Christ of no effect, for I am mightier than the blood, mightier than the blood of the Son of God himself; though God make his purpose, yet will I laugh at his purpose; it shall be my purpose that shall make his purpose stand or fall.” Why, sirs, if this be not atheism, it is idolatry; it is putting man where God should be; and I shrink with solemn awe and horror from that doctrine which makes the grandest of God’s works—the salvation of man—to be dependent upon the will of his creature whether it shall be accomplished or not. Glory I can and must in my text in its fullest sense. “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Romans 9:16).6

Our Lord’s mission was not to save all whom He addressed; it was to save out of them as many as His Father gave Him: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (John 6:37).

O unconverted man, your will is no place on which to fix your hope—the will cannot set itself free. Only God can set the prisoner free.

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/reisinger/gwmwfwch03.htm

 

[Iconoclast]

here is another;
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/09/free_will_vs_free_agency.php
Free will vs. Free Agency
Visitor: What's the difference between freewill and free-agency?

Response: While descriptions may vary, I find the following explanation to be helpful. When it is said that people have no "free will" it does not mean that a person is coerced from the outside and must act against his will. Let that be clear up front. With this in mind, it is important that we learn to distinguish coersion vs. necessity. We are indeed free of external coersion but not free of necessity. Let me explain:

What we mean by denying a (fallen) person has free will is that he/she will act, by necessity, according to the corruption of his/her nature. They are in bondage to sin meaning the love of God and His law are not the unregenerate persons' deepest animating motive and principle (nor is it his motive at all), in anything he does. No one is coercing a sinner to act as they do. Man eagerly volunteers his submission to sin. This means, the unregenerate person will always choose according to who they are by nature, driven by their disposition. In other words, our choices are all voluntary, but we are not free to choose otherwise because we will not understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) and indeed are hostile to them, according to Scripture. Men love darkness and hate the light and will not come into the light (John 3:19, 20) Without the Holy Spirit, man, by nature, is hostile to Christ. In other words, we are in bondage to sin until Christ sets us free. Jesus himself says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, that a thornbush cannot bear figs. Jesus is teaching us that the nature of a thing determines BY NECESSITY (not coersion) the direction he/she will take.


Consider the concept of free will by applying it to God Himself. If freedom were defined as the freedom to choose otherwise, let us ask ourselves, does God have such freedom to choose otherwise? In other words, can God freely choose to do good or evil as He pleases? No, of course not. God in his essence is holy and therefore, by definition, cannot sin or be unholy. If he sinned or broke His sure promise He would no longer be God. The same kind of example can be applied to the glorified saints in heaven. God has sealed them in righteousness and they can no longer sin, and more than this, they have no ability to sin or choose otherwise. Yet we consider them the MOST free of all creatures.

Thus the Bible defines freedom, not as the freedom to choose otherwise in any way we please (contrary to our innate disposition), but as holiness, freedom from sin. Read Romans chapter 6. When Jesus says He will set people free, He does not say they are now free to choose good or evil but He will set them free from the bondage of sin. And where there is bondage, by definition there is no freedom. Yes we have free agency, that is, we can voluntarily choose according to our desires, but because our desires are in bondage to corruption of nature this is not freedom in the Biblical sense. Liberation of the will occurs when the Holy Spirit acts to free us.

Consider the opposite theological position which affirms that God elects people based on some kind of forseen faith. If God already knows who will be saved even before He creates them, then such a reality (their salvation) is fixed and cannot be otherwise. Thus God would be wasting His time to try to convert persons whom He knows will never come to faith. Synergists say that God is trying to save every man, yet such a position is untenable if God already knows who is to be saved, that is, unless you are willing to concede that God is not omniscient, but then you would be denying that He is indeed God.

If God knows the end from the beginning exhaustively then He knows who will be saved even prior to creating them. There is certainty here, an unchangable certainty. An additional problem with this is that it means that there is no real free will in this Arminian foreseen faith position because the future is already certain and cannot be otherwise. Yet in this same view God does not determine this future, and thus something else, like Fate perhaps, determines who will believe. The position is so untenable that many traditional Arminians have fled to become open theists who believe God has no exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. But this heretical view will not stand and is sub-Christian.

Hope this helps

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not hold that all events are determined by God. I also do not believe that His lack of intentional involvement (outside of the laws in which He has already created) changes the level of His sovereignty. God is still sovereign and His purposes and will are always the outcome in this world.

As to salvation I do not believe He purposes individuals to be saved but He does purpose that the world will be saved (John 3:16). His election is corporate, His grace if offered to all, and Salvation is only to those who believe (John 1:12).

 

[Yeshua1]

I am opening this thread to continue a discussion that was concluded a few days ago with the closing of a thread. But I will keep (or will try to keep) the thread on topic and “honest”. What is being discussed is not the "problem of evil", but the existence and extent of free will and determinism, and whether or not they are compatible.

It seems that we have three choices when it comes to Determinism, Free Will, and Compatibilism.

1. Our choices are predetermined, there is no such thing as free will.
   
   
2. Our choices are free from all determination and constraint. Their outcome is not predetermined.
   
   
3. The outcome of our choices are predetermined and we choose freely.

Compatibilism claims that determinism and free will are compatible, with the caveat that Compatibilists may define “free will” differently (like those who hold to determinism, Compatibilists deny the existence of libertarian free will). Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the constraints of both human nature and God. Free Will Theists hold that libertarian freedom is necessary for moral responsibility (and I agree, except for the “libertarian” part). If my choice is determined by anything, even my own desires, wants, needs, etc. then they cannot be free choices.

I am a Compatibilist. I believe that God is both Creator and Sustainer. Our wills are bound, so to speak, by our nature. Our nature is influenced by many factors (our psychology, worldview, cultural norms, ideologies, and our experiences, to name a few). I believe that God is a God of means. God is sovereign, to include a sovereignty that extends to those factors that will contribute to our nature and influence our decisions.

I believe that all events are determined by God (theological determinism), that events are normally necessitated by the laws of nature(casual determinism) as a means through which God works in both sustaining creation and working all things in accordance to his will. But I believe that within this system of determined outcomes, men possess free will in that their choices are not made by compulsion. Men choose freely. I do not view determinism and free will to be contradictory.

To clarify a couple of misconceptions from another thread - Compatiblism is not "neo-Calvinism", or "neo" anything. It is not about reconciling God to the existence of evil. It is about the existence of free will, or the capability of men to make free choices, when the outcome is determined by an outside factor (God, nature, desire, norms, etc.).

Agree with you and Spurgeon, as he held to view 3, and also think that some here confuse determination as Hyper cals as same way normal als would see it!

 

[JonC]

I would offer a more simple explanation.
There is no free will.
We do make choices as a free moral agent.
Our will is bound by our nature.
Upon glorification we will no longer be able to sin.

this is helpful from the reformed reader;
Chapter Three

Free Will and Free Agency



In the last two chapters we have considered free will and man’s four-fold state. A brief summary will be helpful as we continue:

1. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well pleasing to God; but that state was mutable, or changeable, so that he was able to fall from it.
   
   
2. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has entirely lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; therefore, as a natural man, being altogether averse to that good, and dead in sin, he is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself or to prepare himself for salvation.
   
   
3. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet, by reason of his remaining corruption, he also wills that which is evil.
   
   
4. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only. Any study of the will of man is incomplete without some explanation of the difference between free will and free agency. I am using free as meaning “independent, sovereign, autonomous,” that is, “not subject to the rule or control of another.”

An agent is “one who acts, performs an act, or has power to act—a moving force.” Man is a free moral agent, but he does not have a free will. Man is only free to act according to his nature, and he was born with a sinful nature (see Ps. 5 1:5).

One does not pursue the study of free will and free agency very far until he comes head on with an apparent contradiction (note well, I said “apparent”). We must, in all candor, acknowledge these apparent contradictions. They deserve some serious, thoughtful consideration. For example, we must address God’s commands and man’s inability—God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

I agree with your conclusions here, Icon.

That said, I think it is difficult to speak of "free agency" vs. "free will". Most of the time when people speak of free will, they are not dealing with libertarian free will. I simply reject that those who hold that error should make the definitions.

Within the bounds of nature and our nature, we act freely. The reason I like the term free will is that it shows a freedom. We, in Christ, are free. He has set us free. At the same time, when we choose the good it is Christ in us. And when we choose evil, it is looking back at the bondage from which we came.

I trained my dog as a puppy to stay in the yard unless on a leash. When he became a grown dog, he stayed in the yard. That was my will, it is what I wanted. But you know what? The dog willingly stayed in the yard. He could have left any time...nothing kept him in there. It was a choice he made because it had been instilled in him to stay in the yard.

 

[JonC]

Agree with you and Spurgeon, as he held to view 3, and also think that some here confuse determination as Hyper cals as same way normal als would see it!

Spurgeon also explained very well that God is a God of means. He described the normal process of "drawing" to faith as persuasion (a friend explains or reveals a truth in a way that it communicates to you and you accept it as true). Libertarian free will, by necessity, excludes persuasion in salvation. Calvinists believe this is how men are saved (God working through means).

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree with your conclusions here, Icon.

That said, I think it is difficult to speak of "free agency" vs. "free will". Most of the time when people speak of free will, they are not dealing with libertarian free will. I simply reject that those who hold that error should make the definitions.

Within the bounds of nature and our nature, we act freely. The reason I like the term free will is that it shows a freedom. We, in Christ, are free. He has set us free. At the same time, when we choose the good it is Christ in us. And when we choose evil, it is looking back at the bondage from which we came.

I trained my dog as a puppy to stay in the yard unless on a leash. When he became a grown dog, he stayed in the yard. That was my will, it is what I wanted. But you know what? The dog willingly stayed in the yard. He could have left any time...nothing kept him in there. It was a choice he made because it had been instilled in him to stay in the yard.

Sam Waldron uses that terminology in his commentary on the 1689 confession of faith I just avoided because I know the other people are going to seize on it and for all manner of other definitions into it that I'm not comfortable with

 

[Yeshua1]

Spurgeon also explained very well that God is a God of means. He described the normal process of "drawing" to faith as persuasion (a friend explains or reveals a truth in a way that it communicates to you and you accept it as true). Libertarian free will, by necessity, excludes persuasion in salvation. Calvinists believe this is how men are saved (God working through means).

The Lord also enables us to be able to understand and to be persuaded, as that is a work o fthe Holy Spirit. All sinners can hear the same Gospel ans persuasion from God, but only those whom God grants ears to hear and hearts to receive will get persuaded.

 

[JonC]

The Lord also enables us to be able to understand and to be persuaded, as that is a work o fthe Holy Spirit. All sinners can hear the same Gospel ans persuasion from God, but only those whom God grants ears to hear and hearts to receive will get persuaded.

Perhaps it is one and the same. Instead of God enabling us to be persuaded, what if he quickens us through persuasion (through the power of the gospel)?

 

[JonC]

pt2;
Thus the Arminian and the Calvinist differ on their qualifying conditions of what makes up a free will. The Calvinist believes the man is free to choose and act in accordance with his nature. The Arminian, with his Pelagian roots denying moral depravity, believes that the will can make choices which are completely untainted by his nature and thus has a “free will.” In contrast, the Calvinist believes man is a free agent—free to act according to his own nature.

Free agency is not to be confused with “free will.” Because of the fall, men have lost their ability—the will—to obey God, but they are just as responsible to God to obey perfectly His commands. Thus Spurgeon could say, “I dread more than anything your being left to your own free will.” Arminianism, alongside hyper-Calvinisrn, argues that sinners cannot be required to do what they are not able to do, namely, to believe in Christ for salvation, since the ability to believe belongs only to the elect and is only given at a time determined by the Spirit of God. They say, “For a preacher to call all his hearers to immediate repentance and faith is to deny both human depravity and sovereign grace.” So they say.

Spurgeon says this on the implications of free will:

According to the free will scheme, the Lord intends good, but he must wait like a lackey on his own creature to know what his intention is; God willeth good and would do it but he cannot because he has an unwilling man who will not have God’s good thing carried into effect. What do ye, sirs, but drag the Eternal from his throne and lift up into it that fallen creature, man; for man, according to that theory, nods and his nod is destiny. You must have a destiny somewhere; it must either be as God wills or as man wills. If it be as God wills, then Jehovah sits as sovereign upon his throne of glory, and all hosts obey him, and the world is safe; if not God, then you put man there to say, “I will,” or “I will not; if I will it, I will enter heaven; if I will it, I will despise the grace of God; if I will it, I will conquer the Holy Spirit, for I am stronger than God and stronger than omnipotence; if I will it, I will make the blood of Christ of no effect, for I am mightier than the blood, mightier than the blood of the Son of God himself; though God make his purpose, yet will I laugh at his purpose; it shall be my purpose that shall make his purpose stand or fall.” Why, sirs, if this be not atheism, it is idolatry; it is putting man where God should be; and I shrink with solemn awe and horror from that doctrine which makes the grandest of God’s works—the salvation of man—to be dependent upon the will of his creature whether it shall be accomplished or not. Glory I can and must in my text in its fullest sense. “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Romans 9:16).6

Our Lord’s mission was not to save all whom He addressed; it was to save out of them as many as His Father gave Him: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (John 6:37).

O unconverted man, your will is no place on which to fix your hope—the will cannot set itself free. Only God can set the prisoner free.

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/reisinger/gwmwfwch03.htm

I like your post here, and Spurgeon is one of my favorites. But, alas...you bring out the heretic in me . I disagree on a couple of points...even with Spurgeon.

We speak of Adam as if he lost something in the Fall. I presume one could say that innocence was lost. Having experienced such a closeness with God, I suspect that Adam’s understanding of God’s nature may have been superior to ours. Perhaps this accounts for Garden imagery in ANE temples. Just a thought.

Anyway, Scripture does not tell us that Adam lost anything. It does not tell us that Adam’s nature went from “alive” to “dead”. What it tells us was that Adam’s eyes were opened and he became “like one of Us, knowing good and evil”. I gather that, having existed always in God’s presence in the Garden, Adam had known good from the time he came into existence until the time he disobeyed God. And transgressing the Law, Adam knew evil.

I think it very likely that God had determined the Fall, and that it was for this reason Adam was ultimately placed in the Garden (where God would dwell with man). I believe that God caused these things to work for the good and predestined redemption in such a way that man would be conformed to the image of Christ, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren. The Garden was not created for man, but for God and ultimately for the redemption of man. And the redemption of man is not for man but for God, so that His Son would be the firstborn of many. Even as He created Adam, I believe God had man’s recreation in mind.

So I do not know that I agree that men are "unable" except that unable be equated with unwilling. Scripture presents men as have the ability to repent, but because they are unwilling they are unable. Perhaps it's a difference without distinction, but I don't think so.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

I like your post here, and Spurgeon is one of my favorites. But, alas...you bring out the heretic in me . I disagree on a couple of points...even with Spurgeon.

I admire Spurgeon for using the gift of God he was given extensively. He took liberties with the text sometimes to attempt to reach the lost and people who were outside the church. He was on point way more than most ....yet all trusted guides need to be searched as to what they teach.

We speak of Adam as if he lost something in the Fall. I presume one could say that innocence was lost. Having experienced such a closeness with God, I suspect that Adam’s understanding of God’s nature may have been superior to ours. Perhaps this accounts for Garden imagery in ANE temples. Just a thought.

Some speak of Adam and Eve as having original righteousness....yet being untested.

Anyway, Scripture does not tell us that Adam lost anything. It does not tell us that Adam’s nature went from “alive” to “dead”.

Why I sometimes avoid this kind of discussion is the wording used.....those words were not used...but what was used is suggestive....

dying thou shalt surely die....something went from being alive, to dying
whatever it was....all of us died in him at that point in time as he was the representative man

What could have "died" both in him and subsequently in us,at that point in time?
Most would say our spirit, or what we are by nature.
In other words we as image bearers were broken, and damaged at that point in time.
Man was to be an analogy of God, thinking Gods thoughts after Him. This ability is what was lost, or at least part of what was lost that day.

What it tells us was that Adam’s eyes were opened and he became “like one of Us, knowing good and evil”. I gather that, having existed always in God’s presence in the Garden, Adam had known good from the time he came into existence until the time he disobeyed God. And transgressing the Law, Adam knew evil.

That was Satan twisting Gods word....God did not tell them that...
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

I think it very likely that God had determined the Fall, and that it was for this reason Adam was ultimately placed in the Garden (where God would dwell with man). I believe that God caused these things to work for the good and predestined redemption in such a way that man would be conformed to the image of Christ, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren. The Garden was not created for man, but for God and ultimately for the redemption of man. And the redemption of man is not for man but for God, so that His Son would be the firstborn of many. Even as He created Adam, I believe God had man’s recreation in mind.

We can know something of this by looking at the true Image bearer...the Lord Jesus. Adam pre fall was not promised to be glorified as we are In the Last Adam.
psalm 8...hebrews2:5-8

So I do not know that I agree that men are "unable" except that unable be equated with unwilling. Scripture presents men as have the ability to repent, but because they are unwilling they are unable. Perhaps it's a difference without distinction, but I don't think so.

Do you see anywhere that someone repents all by themselves?

 

[Iconoclast]

Revmitchell

I do not hold that all events are determined by God.

You have to clarify your statement......what do you mean exactly?

I also do not believe that His lack of intentional involvement (outside of the laws in which He has already created) changes the level of His sovereignty.

Is He only a spectator? a sovereign spectator?

God is still sovereign and His purposes and will are always the outcome in this world.

He watches what happens, then says it was His purpose?

As to salvation I do not believe He purposes individuals to be saved

God does not Purpose to save any individual?

but He does purpose that the world will be saved (John 3:16).

He purposes that the world will be saved....but they are not saved???

His election is corporate,

How so? He did not elect any single person?
What does this mean?
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

His grace if offered to all,

Many live and die without hearing of Jesus....how was grace offered to them savingly?

 

[Yeshua1]

I like your post here, and Spurgeon is one of my favorites. But, alas...you bring out the heretic in me . I disagree on a couple of points...even with Spurgeon.

We speak of Adam as if he lost something in the Fall. I presume one could say that innocence was lost. Having experienced such a closeness with God, I suspect that Adam’s understanding of God’s nature may have been superior to ours. Perhaps this accounts for Garden imagery in ANE temples. Just a thought.

Anyway, Scripture does not tell us that Adam lost anything. It does not tell us that Adam’s nature went from “alive” to “dead”. What it tells us was that Adam’s eyes were opened and he became “like one of Us, knowing good and evil”. I gather that, having existed always in God’s presence in the Garden, Adam had known good from the time he came into existence until the time he disobeyed God. And transgressing the Law, Adam knew evil.

I think it very likely that God had determined the Fall, and that it was for this reason Adam was ultimately placed in the Garden (where God would dwell with man). I believe that God caused these things to work for the good and predestined redemption in such a way that man would be conformed to the image of Christ, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren. The Garden was not created for man, but for God and ultimately for the redemption of man. And the redemption of man is not for man but for God, so that His Son would be the firstborn of many. Even as He created Adam, I believe God had man’s recreation in mind.

So I do not know that I agree that men are "unable" except that unable be equated with unwilling. Scripture presents men as have the ability to repent, but because they are unwilling they are unable. Perhaps it's a difference without distinction, but I don't think so.

God warned them they would taste death ifhe dosobeyed, ad when the fell, physical and spiritual death came unto them and all after them.
Spiritual death is a state apart from God, and an inability to comeback to God, to have access to Him apart from Jesus......
Before tha Fall, perfect unity and relationship with God, afterwards, not so much, as need a Messiah!

 

[Yeshua1]

JonC,



I admire Spurgeon for using the gift of God he was given extensively. He took liberties with the text sometimes to attempt to reach the lost and people who were outside the church. He was on point way more than most ....yet all trusted guides need to be searched as to what they teach.



Some speak of Adam and Eve as having original righteousness....yet being untested.


Why I sometimes avoid this kind of discussion is the wording used.....those words were not used...but what was used is suggestive....

dying thou shalt surely die....something went from being alive, to dying
whatever it was....all of us died in him at that point in time as he was the representative man

What could have "died" both in him and subsequently in us,at that point in time?
Most would say our spirit, or what we are by nature.
In other words we as image bearers were broken, and damaged at that point in time.
Man was to be an analogy of God, thinking Gods thoughts after Him. This ability is what was lost, or at least part of what was lost that day.




That was Satan twisting Gods word....God did not tell them that...
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.



We can know something of this by looking at the true Image bearer...the Lord Jesus. Adam pre fall was not promised to be glorified as we are In the Last Adam.
psalm 8...hebrews2:5-8


Do you see anywhere that someone repents all by themselves?

Good posting, asAdam/Eve were in a state of innocence before Fall, morally perfect, but then became impure and fallen!

 

[Yeshua1]

Revmitchell


You have to clarify your statement......what do you mean exactly?



Is He only a spectator? a sovereign spectator?


He watches what happens, then says it was His purpose?


God does not Purpose to save any individual?


He purposes that the world will be saved....but they are not saved???


How so? He did not elect any single person?
What does this mean?
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.


Many live and die without hearing of Jesus....how was grace offered to them savingly?

Think that our Brother holdsto a form of collective salvation plan, in that God elected those in Churchto be the saved, and they are the ones electingting themselves into it by placing faith in Christ!
Book was called Elect in the Son...

 

[JonC]

JonC,



I admire Spurgeon for using the gift of God he was given extensively. He took liberties with the text sometimes to attempt to reach the lost and people who were outside the church. He was on point way more than most ....yet all trusted guides need to be searched as to what they teach.



Some speak of Adam and Eve as having original righteousness....yet being untested.


Why I sometimes avoid this kind of discussion is the wording used.....those words were not used...but what was used is suggestive....

dying thou shalt surely die....something went from being alive, to dying
whatever it was....all of us died in him at that point in time as he was the representative man

What could have "died" both in him and subsequently in us,at that point in time?
Most would say our spirit, or what we are by nature.
In other words we as image bearers were broken, and damaged at that point in time.
Man was to be an analogy of God, thinking Gods thoughts after Him. This ability is what was lost, or at least part of what was lost that day.




That was Satan twisting Gods word....God did not tell them that...
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.



We can know something of this by looking at the true Image bearer...the Lord Jesus. Adam pre fall was not promised to be glorified as we are In the Last Adam.

I’m going to paraphrase the best I can here, but John Piper gave the illustration of man’s shadow. When Adam sinned, he took his eyes off of the Light (off of God) and gazed instead at his own “shadow” and loved the image rather than the one Whom the image represented. When God saves us he turns us back around.

As a result of Adam’s sin, God removed him from the Garden (from God’s presence) and placed him outside, from the ground upon which he had been taken. I agree that this is a spiritual death (not the second death) in that man is spiritually turned away from God.

And this was God’s design all along. And Adam freely chose to sin. What I do not understand is the conclusion that if something is predestined or predetermined it cannot also be freely chosen. I just do not see the logic in that type of thinking because we are speaking of two different things with two different intents – divine providence and free choice.

Do you see anywhere that someone repents all by themselves?

No, no one repents all by themselves. Their inability, however, is because they are unwilling. Men, I believe, seek after a god but one that they can have without the change of repentance. Men are unwilling to take their eyes off of the image to turn to the One whom that image should represent.

 

[Yeshua1]

I’m going to paraphrase the best I can here, but John Piper gave the illustration of man’s shadow. When Adam sinned, he took his eyes off of the Light (off of God) and gazed instead at his own “shadow” and loved the image rather than the one Whom the image represented. When God saves us he turns us back around.

As a result of Adam’s sin, God removed him from the Garden (from God’s presence) and placed him outside, from the ground upon which he had been taken. I agree that this is a spiritual death (not the second death) in that man is spiritually turned away from God.

And this was God’s design all along. And Adam freely chose to sin. What I do not understand is the conclusion that if something is predestined or predetermined it cannot also be freely chosen. I just do not see the logic in that type of thinking because we are speaking of two different things with two different intents – divine providence and free choice.
No, no one repents all by themselves. Their inability, however, is because they are unwilling. Men, I believe, seek after a god but one that they can have without the change of repentance. Men are unwilling to take their eyes off of the image to turn to the One whom that image should represent.

Sinners;left to theirown devices will keep choosng to reject the light and stay in darlkness...

 

[JonC]

I believe that there could be discussion on several issues here. Corporate election and individual election would be a good topic to discuss. The effect of the Fall on human nature would be another. And then there is the "problem of evil", which could be an endless yet circular discussion if it were not for page limits.

My purpose for this thread was Compatibilism – specifically the view that within a deterministic system choices can be freely made – and arguments for and against Compatibilism. I simply do not find the logic that free will cannot exist alongside determinism very compelling.

There are some who believe that the decisions we make can be influenced by nature, desires, needs, ideologies, cultural norms, etc., but strongly deny that they can be influenced by God. In other words, if the argument is libertarian free will vs. casual determinism, they would reject free will. In fact, the only time they seem to side towards free will is if it is theological determinism. What they ignore is that Christian Compatibilists view God as sovereign over those influencers that they would accept if only God had no part in them. Their argument seems to be to turn towards Deism, not Christianity. Given a previous thread, I suspect they see the inconsistencies in their logic as they were pursuing it. But it would still make an interesting discussion.