Did Adam and Eve have free will before the fall?

[Bronconagurski]

You sound like the typical 2-3 point moderate Baptist, and I challenge you to find any notable, or knowledgable scholarly Calvinist who would categorize you as one of their own. Again, I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm just telling you that I'm almost more Calvinistic than you are.

What you have just describe is known as the foresight faith view of some classical Arminians. I'm trying to find just one point where you would qualify as Calvinistic. It appears that only your affirmation of the P (perseverance) is consistent with Calvinism, which most of us as Baptist also affirm...but we certainly aren't Calvinists just because we affirm that point.

I disagree that most Baptists agree with the P. Most Baptists believe OSAS, which means a man can be saved, not serve God for most of his life, but still go to heaven. There is a big difference between that and perseverance. Besides, tulip was never brought into play in Calvinism until the 1900's. I challenge you to prove otherwise. You don't have to believe in tulip to be a Calvinist. You don't have to believe in predestination the way Calvin did to be a Calvinist. There are books out there saying the same things.

Also, I believe in the total depravity of man. This is the definition to which I agree: T -- total depravity. This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.
Not trying to be mean, but are you sure YOU know about Calvinism?

Now for the I in tulip:

I -- irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.

God chose us in Christ according to His foreknowledge.

Might as well keep defining- P -- perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.

and then, this- U -- unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.

So, you see, if I can define what tulip means, I have no problem with it.

 

[convicted1]

I am a Calvanist in my definition, despite what you think. I don't have to accept the Calvanist paradigm any more than I do your conclusion. I mean no offense with that statement, nor malice toward you. I have enjoyed this thread. I know that I never would have gotten saved if God did not reveal Himself to me and convict me, and I know that because He saved me, He will make sure that I persevere. Those two things make me a Calvanist in my book.

I am not a Calvinist, but I agree with what I bolded.

 

[Crabtownboy]

If not, then did God want them to sin? Is so, did their free will change after the fall?

Of course they had free will.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The distinction is that you focus on the outward appearance, God focuses on the heart.

That doesn't address what I was trying to convey in the least. It has nothing to do with this topic. I am merely trying to put two groups on the same sheet of music. "Free-willers" and "Determinists" are speaking past each other.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is sinning only a choice after the fall? How much does our sin nature play into sin? To me, the doctrine of the depravity of man is one of the doctrines I strongly believe in Calvanism. But before the fall, I am struggling to define what kind of nature Adam and Eve had. Some call it innocence, others perfection, but they obviously were not perfect. Did they have the Holy Spirit indwelling them? Also, what indication to we have that Adam and Eve were saved after the fall? Did the Holy Spirit indwell them after the fall if they were saved?

I know Adam sinned willfully, but I wonder why he didn't speak up if he was present at Eve's temptation. Scripture records no conversation from Adam toward Eve or the Serpent. It makes me wonder if he was really there the whole time. If so, he dropped the ball bigtime.

they were created to be beings without sin natures, so any choice to sin would be of their own free wills....

Question is was ANY before the time of jesus and his Cross filled by/with the Spirit, and had new natures?
or did THAT require death of jesus/resurrection, and coming o fthe Spriit at pentacost?

 

[MB]

So if there isn't such a thing as total depravity, why does the scripture plainly tell us that there is none righteous? Why does it say that no one seeks after God? Is not this total depravity? Or do you think that just because no one seeks after God, it does not mean that they could not seek after God should they choose to do so? Depraved means morally bad or corrupt, so this describes mankind perfectly in his natural state if you ask me. If man isn't depraved, then what is he?

Simply depravity does mean un righteous although total depravity means reprobate. A reprobate is unsavable. They have already been turned over to Satan.

Every Christian knows we are all undeserving of Salvation. There are those who believe them selves to be Christian and make that claim by works. Yet Salvation is a gift and we have to receive it by faith.

Men can only seek God when they know there is a God. Which is why we are told to preach the gospel. The quote made by Paul that men do not seek God was originally said by a fool in Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 who also said there is no God.

Calvinism believes men are totally depraved making him unable to respond to the gospel unless regenerated or saved first. Which is a notion made up by men. No where does scripture ever say all men have been disabled. In fact it says the exact opposite.
MB

 

[Winman]

So if there isn't such a thing as total depravity, why does the scripture plainly tell us that there is none righteous? Why does it say that no one seeks after God? Is not this total depravity? Or do you think that just because no one seeks after God, it does not mean that they could not seek after God should they choose to do so? Depraved means morally bad or corrupt, so this describes mankind perfectly in his natural state if you ask me. If man isn't depraved, then what is he?

When the scriptures say no man is righteous, it is speaking of being 100% sinless. It does not mean man cannot do good. Jesus himself said that sinners do good.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Notice that Jesus said "IF" ye do good. That is important, it shows man has both the option and ability to do good. Any man can do good if he chooses to do so.

When the scriptures say no man seeks God, this does not mean men are unable to seek God, just as if I said none of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, would you understand that to mean they are unable to go to church? Of course not, no one would assume that, yet that is exactly what Calvinism assumes when the scriptures say no man seeks God.

And you are buying this false argument and false interpretation of scripture. The scriptures never say man is unable to seek God, only that he doesn't. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Actually, the scriptures show men who did seek God. Cornelius sought God and he was not saved, the Philipian jailer sought God and he was not saved. So, these are GENERAL statements about men.

I tell ya, this thread made me chuckle, I find it funny that Skan is trying to convince you that you are not a Calvinist (and I agree with him), and you are arguing that you are a Calvinist. This is a first on BB that I can remember. :laugh: