Did Adam Have a Free Will?

[Aaron]

Of course we will see it differently. You're one that God chose over the rest!

I'm just a sinner that believed God and accepted His offer.

You mean just a sinner with enough virtue to be chosen on the basis of your merit.

He knew that when he called on me with conviction I would respond exactly the way I did.

 

[Aaron]

Did Adam choose to fall or did God make him fall?

Answered on page 2.

 

[Aaron]

God's plan was that man should know Him and have a relationship with Him. We see that in His relationship with Adam. If Adam had not sinned then we would not have had the requirement of the cross.

God's Plan was to have a multitude of children born unto Him. Behold I and the children which God hath given me. - Hebrews 2:13 That does require the Cross. Whatever you say of Adam you cannot say he was born of God. He was not a partaker of the divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4, and therefore only a part of the Plan...that part by which death and sin would enter in.

 

[Aaron]

Before the foundation of the world, He knew I would be born into this world, and He knew that when he called on me with conviction I would respond exactly the way I did.

I am one of the many before me He gave to His Son.

So, let's talk about foreknowledge a little bit. Would you say that God foreknew that only the descendants of Noah would say yes to Jesus, and therefore saved only his family in the Ark?

That after 4000 years not a single descendant of any of the other of Lamech's children, or any of the children of Lamech's brothers, or of Lamech's father's brothers, would possess enough virtue to respond as you would?

 

[Silverhair]

Answered on page 2.

So God caused Adam to sin, why?

Your view brings the character of God into question. He comes across as unreliable.

 

[Silverhair]

God's Plan was to have a multitude of children born unto Him. Behold I and the children which God hath given me. - Hebrews 2:13 That does require the Cross. Whatever you say of Adam you cannot say he was born of God. He was not a partaker of the divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4, and therefore only a part of the Plan...that part by which death and sin would enter in.

We are children of God through faith in Him. Adam had that relationship and we know that other OT saints had it starting with Abel. So whether we have faith in God before or after the cross it is still faith in God that is the condition of salvation.

Are you suggesting that none of the OT saints were saved?

 

[Aaron]

So God caused Adam to sin,

Not caused, but part of the Plan.

why?

Answered on page 3. Try to keep up.

Your view brings the character of God into question. He comes across as unreliable.

Non-sequitur.

 

[Aaron]

We are children of God through faith in Him. Adam had that relationship

No he didn't. The first person to know God by faith, was Abel.

If Christ were to redeem Adam, He would have been made like him...a body made directly from the dust of the earth. But He wasn't. Christ was born of a woman. For verily ... he took on him the seed of Abraham [who are all born of women]. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren [including being born of a woman], that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. - Hebrews 2:16-17 KJV

and we know that other OT saints had it starting with Abel.

That's right. But God didn't make His covenant with Abel. He made it with Abraham. So Abraham is reckoned the father of the faithful, which includes Abel, but not Adam.

So whether we have faith in God before or after the cross it is still faith in God that is the condition of salvation.

And Christ is the Author of our faith, and they're saved by Christ's work on the Cross.

Are you suggesting that none of the OT saints were saved?

Where'd you get that idea?

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings Aaron. Thank you for your post. I have not read all the posts in this thread. Actually, only yours. So I don't know what the augments are. Just thought I would give some insights. Please excuse if I say something that has already been said.

Taking your post out of order, if that is ok.

Adam was created good...but not uncorruptible.

As Augustine said, Adam was created in a state of "posse peccare" (able to sin), and "posse non peccare" (able not to sin). This analysis, which I think is accurate, seems to imply some kind of freedom of choice for Adam and Eve.

What corrupting influence was found in the Garden, and was it there by God's will?

The two factors in the garden would seem to be (a) the only law of 'thou shall not eat', and (b) Satan the tempter.

My position is that Adam had the libertarian free choice not to sin, whereas the Calvinist’s position is that Adam had no other choice but to sin.

It seems to me that the Calvinist's position is largely, or originally I should say, based on the Supralapsarian model. This model, if you are not familiar with it, logically posits that the elect, and election, was God's first intent of creation.

If one understands this Supralapsarian fact. Then logic would seem to dictate that they hold that God decreed the fall so that there would be a redemptive elect and the chosen to be reprobate would be reprobate.

I don't hold Supralapsarianism btw. It has far too many contradictions to Scripture in where its logic leads for me.

If God has decreed all things that come to pass, that would include Adam’s sin.

I agree. That is, God decreed to allow the fall of Adam and therefore that Adam and Eve would sin.

Peace to you brother.

 

[Silverhair]

No he didn't. The first person to know God by faith, was Abel.

If Christ were to redeem Adam, He would have been made like him...a body made directly from the dust of the earth. But He wasn't. Christ was born of a woman. For verily ... he took on him the seed of Abraham [who are all born of women]. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren [including being born of a woman], that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. - Hebrews 2:16-17 KJV


That's right. But God didn't make His covenant with Abel. He made it with Abraham. So Abraham is reckoned the father of the faithful, which includes Abel, but not Adam.


And Christ is the Author of our faith, and they're saved by Christ's work on the Cross.


Where'd you get that idea?

Whether the OT or NT we are saved by grace through faith.

You do know that Jesus is God?

I have to ask where do you get the idea that Adam did not have faith in God?

So your making the claim that Adam did not walk with God?

 

[Paleouss]

I have to ask where do you get the idea that Adam did not have faith in God?

Greetings Silverhair. A great Monday isn't it.

Do you think this verse would apply to what you are implying?

(Heb 11:6 NKJV) 6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [Him], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and [that] He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

That is, since God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.... and since it is impossible to please God without faith. Then it therefore follows that Adam had faith while in the garden. For God was not displeased with Adam until he ate.


Peace to you brother

 

[Aaron]

Greetings Aaron. Thank you for your post. I have not read all the posts in this thread. Actually, only yours.

Thanks! I think...

So I don't know what the augments are. Just thought I would give some insights. Please excuse if I say something that has already been said.

Taking your post out of order, if that is ok.

As Augustine said, Adam was created in a state of "posse peccare" (able to sin), and "posse non peccare" (able not to sin). This analysis, which I think is accurate, seems to imply some kind of freedom of choice for Adam and Eve.

My take is a little more nuanced. Corruptibility is not an ability, as if Adam had the power to disobey. It is a passive state of being. And existential fact like mortality. Adam was created a living soul, but mortal. In the same sense, Adam was created good, but corruptible. Adam's corruption was passive. It was only then that he could entertain a disobedient thought.

The two factors in the garden would seem to be (a) the only law of 'thou shall not eat', and (b) Satan the tempter.

The commandment, being holy and just and good, cannot be a corrupting factor. It's the communication with evil that corrupts.

It seems to me that the Calvinist's position is largely, or originally I should say, based on the Supralapsarian model. This model, if you are not familiar with it, logically posits that the elect, and election, was God's first intent of creation.

If one understands this Supralapsarian fact. Then logic would seem to dictate that they hold that God decreed the fall so that there would be a redemptive elect and the chosen to be reprobate would be reprobate.

I don't hold Supralapsarianism btw. It has far too many contradictions to Scripture in where its logic leads for me.

You're responding to my quote of someone else. I do not hold that Adam had 'libertarian free will.' Libertarian free will doesn't, and never did exist. I wasn't able to insert it as a "quote" because the thread it is in is closed. I tried to make the fact that I was quoting someone else obvious, but the formatting her is limited.

I agree. That is, God decreed to allow the fall of Adam and therefore that Adam and Eve would sin.

It could be no other way.

 

[Aaron]

I have to ask where do you get the idea that Adam did not have faith in God?

The same place I get the idea that Cain did not have faith. Faith and belief in God are not the same things. The devils believe, but do they have faith?

 

[Paleouss]

Adam's corruption was passive. It was only then that he could entertain a disobedient thought.

Thank you Aaron for your thoughts. I appreciate it.

I'm trying to get a handle on what you said. When you say "Adam's corruption was passive", I take that to mean he was created in a 'state' of able to sin, able not to sin. However, being in a 'passive state' he would not sin. You might say he was but a wee babe in maturity.

It took an active agent, like the devil, to tempt Eve.

The commandment, being holy and just and good, cannot be a corrupting factor. It's the communication with evil that corrupts.

I agree that the law of 'thou shall not eat' is not the active 'corrupting factor'. But would you agree that it needed to be in place for there to be 'trespass'? For the Bible says, “sin is the transgression of the law” (1John 3:4). But “where no law is, [there is] no transgression” (Rom 5:14 KJV), and “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom 5:13).

You're responding to my quote of someone else.

I see that now. You put a quote in your OP of someone else. Sorry about that.

Peace to you brother

 

[Silverhair]

The same place I get the idea that Cain did not have faith. Faith and belief in God are not the same things. The devils believe, but do they have faith?

So I ask again where did you get the idea that Adam did not have faith?

That is, at it's best, just speculation on your part.

 

[Paleouss]

I have to ask where do you get the idea that Adam did not have faith in God?

The same place I get the idea that Cain did not have faith. Faith and belief in God are not the same things. The devils believe, but do they have faith?

Pardon my interruption into your conversation. But I find this interesting. That is, did Adam have faith? Or was faith a requirement, or a standard, pre-fall?

Some would conclude that it was of works and not faith when it came to pleasing God pre-fall. However, is it reasonable to think that for Adam to maintain a Spirit-man relationship and worship God in spirit and truth, then Adam "must worship in spirit" (pre-fall) (John 4:24). This worshiping in the spirit, walking with God in the garden, would surly require Adam to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37).

We can reasonably say this because it is written, "for I the Lord do not change" (Mal 3:6). And if God does not change and also says, (Heb 11:6 NKJV) "But without faith [it is] impossible to please [Him]". Then it reasonably follows that Adam could not please God without loving his Lord God and having faith in Him.

It is reasonable, I think, to conclude that this 'faith' pre-fall is not a faith of redemption. For Adam had not fallen. However, it would be a faith of love and submission that God is Lord. For Adam it would seem that this love would be a love that "does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude;” (1Cor 13:4) it is humbled (Isa 66:2), lowly of spirit (Pro 16:19, Pro 29:23), contrite of heart (Psa 51:17,Psa 34:18), and it is not puffed up (Hab 2:4).

Is it reasonable to claim that if Adam lacked any of these things that God would still be pleased?

Peace to you brother

 

[Zaatar71]

Was it possible that Adam never sin, of course it was if that was what God's plan was. But since it was within God's plan that man exercise his free will and because of God's foreknowledge He knew what Adam would do, sin, He had made a plan with that in mind.

The only options are that man has a God given free will or all things are determined. If the first then man is responsible for his choices, if the second then God is responsible for man's choices.

The bible says man is responsible so we see that man has a free will.

You used the term...Foreknowledge. Do you think that means the God, who knows the end from the beginning had to look forward in time, as a spectator to see or learn what men would do? An all knowing God did not know? He had to learn by sort of watching what each individual person would do?? Help me understand what you are saying here? Thanks in advance.

 

[Charlie24]

So, let's talk about foreknowledge a little bit. Would you say that God foreknew that only the descendants of Noah would say yes to Jesus, and therefore saved only his family in the Ark?

That after 4000 years not a single descendant of any of the other of Lamech's children, or any of the children of Lamech's brothers, or of Lamech's father's brothers, would possess enough virtue to respond as you would?

There were circumstances to why only Noah's family were saved, but the bottom line is that they were the only ones who believed God.

Don't want to get into those circumstances, they are highly debated.

Look at Rahab in Jericho, her and a few of family members believed and were spared. And so it goes throughout history.

 

[Charlie24]

There were circumstances to why only Noah's family were saved, but the bottom line is that they were the only ones who believed God.

Don't want to get into those circumstances, they are highly debated.

Look at Rahab in Jericho, her and a few of family members believed and were spared. And so it goes throughout history.

Look at Christ going out of his way into Samaria, knowing there was a woman there who would believe Him at the well.

Nearly the whole city came to faith through that one woman telling everyone the Messiah was here.

 

[Charlie24]

Look at Christ going out of his way into Samaria, knowing there was a woman there who would believe Him at the well.

Nearly the whole city came to faith through that one woman telling everyone the Messiah was here.

Through God's foreknowledge when He wanted to create a nation for His Son to be born to redeem the world, He went to pagan land and called a pagan worshipper to be the father of that nation.

Because He knew Abraham would believe Him. It' s possible there was not another human being on earth that would have believed and obeyed Him.