An honest look at "free-will" #1: Gen.3:4-6

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Can: Let me ask the next question. You have stated that you believe Adam and Eve had freewill before the fall. Do you believe the entrance of sin into their lives after the fall effected their freewill in anyway? If so, how?

HP: That is a hard question, for something to have an effect upon something can be a very hard issue to explain just how and why that occurs. If you would simply ask me if they still had a free will after the fall, I would say absolutely. How sin effected their free will lends itself to a discussion on how any sinful influence affects the way one forms their intents.

Sin is not a stagnate idea, but rather sin is a progressive evil. Sin has a snowballing effect. The effects of sin, especially evident in its gratification of selfish desire, serve as formidable influences to the process of increased desire and eventual enslavement. None the less, unless the enslavement elevates to the point of total elimination of all abilities to choose otherwise, ones is still a moral agent and as such able to choose differently than it does under the very same set of circumstances. If one reaches the point of total enslavement of the will, and no possibility exists other than to yield to the selfish desires that result from the allurement of sin, one would cease to be held accountable for their actions and would be treated as one treats a mental patient that is no longer in possession of the ability to resist the coercive powers of selfishness.

I do not believe Adam and Eve reached any such point after the fall in which they lost their free will due to their sin, and nether do I believe most today ever reach that point. Just the same, sin has a far reaching effect upon the choices we make and has an especially detrimental effect upon the makeup of man, especially in the realm of the physical sensibilities. This physical depravity that has resulted from sin, and serves to influence our wills in the choices it makes, is a formidable influence indeed. I believe that Scripture is clear, all that reach the age of accountability allow those influences as well as others, to shape the decisions of our wills formation of intents, and in the process sin and become guilty before God, for that all have sinned.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: The ability to resist sin or choose righteousness is a part of our moral makeup granted to us by God.

God "grants" it by the supernatural work of Gen 3 "I WILL PUT emnity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent".

God "Grants" that ability to choose by supernaturally "drawing ALL mankind to himself".

You keep arguing the etherial hypothetical case that if GOD DID NOT "grant" in this way - man would STILL have the ability to choose.

Since we have never seen such a world as you are describing - how would you know?

HP: What about those He promises to send a delusion to instead of conviction?

There are no such people. In all cases in THIS world God "convicts THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Those who are sent a delusion AFTER being drawn are sent that delustion BECAUSE they say "no" because "They did not RECEIVE a love of the truth" 2Thess 2.

Bob, God is not a respecter of persons, and some not hearing the gospel message or not having the gospel message taken to them does not make Him a respecter of persons because only some will have the opportunity to hear.

God never says that without a missionary nobody hears -

According to Romans 1 and 10 it is the work of nature itself to convey the message that all need to hear to be DRAWN to be enabled to choose.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"HP: The ability to resist sin or choose righteousness is a part of our moral makeup granted to us by God.

BR:
God "grants" it by the supernatural work of Gen 3 "I WILL PUT emnity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent".

God "Grants" that ability to choose by supernaturally "drawing ALL mankind to himself".

You keep arguing the etherial hypothetical case that if GOD DID NOT "grant" in this way - man would STILL have the ability to choose."

GE:

Bob, yours is exactly the Calvinism I believe!?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Then, how do you contradict youself! : quote:

"There are no such people. In all cases in THIS world God "convicts THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Those who are sent a delusion AFTER being drawn are sent that delustion BECAUSE they say "no" because "They did not RECEIVE a love of the truth" 2Thess 2."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"God never says that without a missionary nobody hears -
According to Romans 1 and 10 it is the work of nature itself to convey the message that all need to hear to be DRAWN to be enabled to choose."

Now this is heresy! You directly contradict the Scriptures, God saying through Paul faith comes by hearing --- only! And he says no one preaches unless specifically called to.
It's election from beginning to end or it's not grace.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

And the 'work of nature' always is to condemn - never to "enabled to choose". ("According to Romans 1 and 10 it is the work of nature itself to convey the message that all need to hear to be DRAWN to be enabled to choose.")

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Neither of the two, nature and Law, have 'salvific' properties. Paul actually says the heathen because of God's 'natural revelation' are doubly damned, just like those who have received God's revelation through the Law "have no excuse".

 

[BobRyan]

BR:

"God never says that without a missionary nobody hears -
According to Romans 1 and 10 it is the work of nature itself to convey the message that all need to hear to be DRAWN to be enabled to choose."

Now this is heresy! You directly contradict the Scriptures,

Accusing is not the same as proving GE. To prove your point you actually need to look at Romans 1 "So they are WITHOUT excuse" because "of the invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been made".

And in Romans 10 the reference is made to the voice of nature by which "ALL" have heard.

See? The bible again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Accusing is not the same as proving GE. To prove your point you actually need to look at Romans 1 "So they are WITHOUT excuse" because "of the invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been made".

And in Romans 10 the reference is made to the voice of nature by which "ALL" have heard.

HP: You are addressing the passages in question with the unsubstantiated presupposition that if God reveals Himself in any way to man that it is equivalent to granting to him the gospel message. You beg the question concerning whether or not all have been given the ‘gospel’ message.

Understanding that a God exists and that they have some obligation to worship and obey this God is not the same as receiving the gospel message Bob. Scripture is clear that if none is sent to preach, they will not hear nor understand the hope of the gospel. Ro 10:14 “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"God never says that without a missionary nobody hears -
According to Romans 1 and 10 it is the work of nature itself to convey the message that all need to hear to be DRAWN to be enabled to choose."

[/color][/size][/font]

Accusing is not the same as proving GE. To prove your point you actually need to look at Romans 1 "So they are WITHOUT excuse" because "of the invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been made".

And in Romans 10 the reference is made to the voice of nature by which "ALL" have heard.

See? The bible again.

In Christ,

Bob

GE:

They are not excused, but declared without excuse. Being sinners by their own nature already they are damned twice - the second time by 'natural revelation'. 'Natural revelation'does not find them innocent, neutral moral agents, facing some sort of Adamic test. They had been judged damnable and now again are proven damnable by 'natural revelation.
You read in stuff that isn't in there, PLAINLY.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"in Romans 10 the reference is made to the voice of nature by which "ALL" have heard ..."

GE:

and ALL were judged guilty of death; 'by which', moreover, none have ever been saved.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:

"The ability to resist sin or choose righteousness is a part of our moral makeup granted to us by God."

Not true. No posterity of Adam's has such an ability; you are dreaming. Every of Adam's sons are unable to resist sin, or to choose righteousness. That ability is a gift - the gift of struggle - coming with regeneration and conversion --- which again are all the gift of grace, "granted to us by God" from pure unmotivated and inexplicable favour, which in no respect is some universal 'part of our moral makeup". In fact it is the condition that one should first be - and be judged - a lost sinner and slave of sin, before one may receive this particular mercy from God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

One must first have part in the 'first resurrection' in order to participate in that freedom wherein 'the second death has no power over him".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: "The ability to resist sin or choose righteousness is a part of our moral makeup granted to us by God."

GE: No posterity of Adam's has such an ability; you are dreaming. Every of Adam's sons are unable to resist sin, or to choose righteousness.

HP: Where is the Scripture that states or implies that man is not even now created with the ability to resist sin or choose righteousness at least at first light of moral agency? The very fact that God blames and punishes man for disobedience is a living testimony, if in fact God is Just as He says He is, that man indeed has all the requisite abilities to obey His commands from first light of moral agency, if they only would. God is no taskmaster, demanding obedience upon pain of eternal damnation for failure to do the impossible.

Call me a dreamer if you so wish, but you are kicking at the pricks when you deny such a clearly understood first truth of reason. It is a first truth of reason that if one is to be blamed or praised one has to be able to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances. You might as well believe that God will send one to hell for being born with blue eyes or black hair as to believe differently.

 

[canadyjd]

HP: That is a hard question, for something to have an effect upon something can be a very hard issue to explain just how and why that occurs.

Thank you for being honest. That will be the next thread I start.

The effects of sin, especially evident in its gratification of selfish desire, serve as formidable influences to the process of increased desire and eventual enslavement.

Jesus said that everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. Just one sin. No process of eventual enslavement, according to Jesus Christ. The enslavement is immediate.

None the less, unless the enslavement elevates to the point of total elimination of all abilities to choose otherwise, ones is still a moral agent and as such able to choose differently than it does under the very same set of circumstances. If one reaches the point of total enslavement of the will, and no possibility exists other than to yield to the selfish desires that result from the allurement of sin, one would cease to be held accountable for their actions and would be treated as one treats a mental patient that is no longer in possession of the ability to resist the coercive powers of selfishness.

I simply don't believe this idea is supported by scripture. Indeed, Romans 9:14-20 clearly states the opposite of what you stated above.

We are, I'm afraid, starting to drift from the Gen. 3 passage. I will answer any question you wish to ask me (I will owe you 2 questions after I ask the next). You have been very gracious in answering my questions and I thank you for that.

Will you answer another question for me concerning the Gen. 3 passage? According to the Gen. 3 passage, what is the deception of Satan? Isn't the deception, "you will be like God, knowing good and evil"?

peace to youraying:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Can..: According to the Gen. 3 passage, what is the deception of Satan? Isn't the deception, "you will be like God, knowing good and evil"?

HP: The issue of deception is a very interesting one. At first thought it might appear to some that if one is deceived that there was no willful intent to disobey. That is simply not the case.

Let me illustrate. Two young men were contemplating a robbery. The one man successfully convinces the other than they can rob this bank, get away with the cash and live on easy street for the rest of their lives.

They rob the bank but it goes sour. They both end up caught red handed. The one man tells the judge that the only reason he committed the robbery was that he was deceived into believing they would somehow escape capture and live happily ever after with plenty of money.

Let me ask you. Does the fact that the man was deceived lesson his guilt for the robbery?

God warned Adam and Eve about the forbidden tree, and told them clearly of the consequences. Does the fact that Eve was deceived by Satan lessen her guilt for disobeying a known commandment of God?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Can: Jesus said that everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. Just one sin. No process of eventual enslavement, according to Jesus Christ. The enslavement is immediate.

HP: Do you think that there are ever senses to certain words, and that in a sense something might be true, and in another sense it might not? Once a person sins there is definitely a sense of enslavement to sin that takes place.

First, when we sin it is not just that sin that is involved, but sin always reaches further than the one act. It has eternal consequences. One is certainly enslaved to the consequences of sin and cannot escape them apart from fulfilling the conditions God has set forth for forgiveness. On the other hand, just because one commits an act of sin does not mean that one cannot in the future choose not to act again in the same manner.

Regardless of how one would act in the future, one would still not escape the enslavement to sin and its punishment, regardless if one refused to ever act again in the same manner.




Do you see how it could be rightfully stated that at first sin one is indeed enslaved to sin in a sense, yet in another sense not enslaved in such a way as to necessite ever repeating the same sin again?

 

[canadyjd]

HP: The issue of deception is a very interesting one. At first thought it might appear to some that if one is deceived that there was no willful intent to disobey. That is simply not the case.

Let me illustrate. Two young men were contemplating a robbery. The one man successfully convinces the other than they can rob this bank, get away with the cash and live on easy street for the rest of their lives.

They rob the bank but it goes sour. They both end up caught red handed. The one man tells the judge that the only reason he committed the robbery was that he was deceived into believing they would somehow escape capture and live happily ever after with plenty of money.

I notice in your answer you did not answer my question. What is the deception of Satan according to the Gen. 3 passage? Isn't it that Eve would "be like God, knowing good and evil'?

However, I will answer your questions since you have answered mine (except the last)

Let me ask you. Does the fact that the man was deceived lesson his guilt for the robbery?

No, in this case. The man knew what he was doing was robbery. He was not deceived about what he was doing, only about what the consequences would be.

But if you wanted an illustration that better represented Eve's state it might go like this:

A father tells his 5 year old not to talk to strangers. While at the park, a young woman approaches the five year old and says "hello". The boy says, "I'm not suppose to talk to strangers" The woman replies, "Oh, I'm not a stranger, I know your father, Buck Rogers. And I know your name, too; it's Buck Rogers, Jr."

Being convinced the woman knows his father and himself, and is therefore not a stranger, the boy talks to the woman. As it turns out, the woman is a stranger, and the boy has disobeyed his father.

God warned Adam and Eve about the forbidden tree, and told them clearly of the consequences. Does the fact that Eve was deceived by Satan lessen her guilt for disobeying a known commandment of God?

No, her guilt was not lessened because of the deception. As a moral agent, she is responsible for her actions, and she was punished accordingly.

Now, what is the deception of Satan according to the Gen. 3 passage? Isn't it that Eve would "be like God, knowing good and evil'?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

HP: Do you think that there are ever senses to certain words, and that in a sense something might be true, and in another sense it might not? Once a person sins there is definitely a sense of enslavement to sin that takes place.

First, when we sin it is not just that sin that is involved, but sin always reaches further than the one act. It has eternal consequences. One is certainly enslaved to the consequences of sin and cannot escape them apart from fulfilling the conditions God has set forth for forgiveness. On the other hand, just because one commits an act of sin does not mean that one cannot in the future choose not to act again in the same manner.

Regardless of how one would act in the future, one would still not escape the enslavement to sin and its punishment, regardless if one refused to ever act again in the same manner.


Do you see how it could be rightfully stated that at first sin one is indeed enslaved to sin in a sense, yet in another sense not enslaved in such a way as to necessite ever repeating the same sin again?

Since I intend to focus on the John 8 passage in my next thread on this topic, I would rather not go into the answer right now. I believe it would take our focus away from Gen 3, and I'm not yet ready to leave there.

peace to you

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Can: Now, what is the deception of Satan according to the Gen. 3 passage? Isn't it that Eve would "be like God, knowing good and evil'?

Ge 3:4 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.

HP: Possibly I do not understand your question. The deception was a lie, in that they did die spiritually, although they did not understand the full implications of that before the fall, or possibly even after the fall. It is I away much like when someone tells you about death as a child having never experienced it first hand or even witnessing a death of any kind.

Satan was evidently telling them that they would become as wise and powerful as God Himself and that they would be able to exist independently of Him. The point is that it was a lie. Scripture states that the deception was three fold. It appealed to the appetite, in that it looked wholesome and desirable, it appealed to the eyes for it looked beautiful, and it appealed to the pride of life in that they thought it would make them wise.

There is nothing in the passage that would indicate that before they chose to eat they did not understand good, as evident in obedience that they had experienced, neither does it indicate that they had no idea of disobedience, wrong or the evil, for God had specifically told them what would happen if they acted in a disobedient way. They clearly understood they were NOT to eat of it, and apparently complied with God’s commands until the serpent deceived them by appealing to latent lust of the flesh and eyes.

One does not have to experience the fruits of disobedience to understand right from wrong, good from bad, evil from righteousness. Just because the tree was named the tree of the knowledge of good and of evil does not mean they had to experience its evil effects to understand right from wrong and to make intelligent decisions regarding obedience and shunning the wrong, or that any knowledge of either moral action could only be understood subsequent to disobedience.

What do you see that I am missing?