Did Adam Have a Free Will?

[Silverhair]

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?

No. That is not what foreknowledge means. As you said He knows the end from the beginning.

An all knowing God did not know?

Of course He knows, He is omniscient. There are no surprises for Him.

He had to learn by sort of watching what each individual person would do?

That view would Molinism. A view that I do not see as biblical.


God does not learn in the sense that we do He being omniscient has full knowledge of all that will happen, foreknowledge if you will. But foreknowing something will happen is not causing it to happen. God knows all the good but He also knows all the evil that will happen. If you want to say that He Via His foreknowledge causes all the good then He also has to via His foreknowledge cause all the evil which is an unbiblical concept.

God has foreknowledge of the free will choices {A, B or C} that man will make not because God determines those choices but because whatever God's foreknowledge is it is of those free will choices that man will make.

Now some will say the man chooses by his greatest desire which is logical as a choice he made would have been his greatest desire at that moment.

 

[atpollard]

I don't hold Supralapsarianism btw. It has far too many contradictions to Scripture in where its logic leads for me.
I agree. That is, God decreed to allow the fall of Adam and therefore that Adam and Eve would sin.

1. God decreed to allow the fall (so you claim to believe).
2. Therefore Adam and Eve would (must inevitably?) sin (so you claim to believe).
3. Supralapsarianism (You do not agree with this).

So my question (inquiring minds want to know) is what is the incompatibility between 1 + 2 and Supralapsarianism?
[using a math pun, why does 1+2 not equal 3?]

 

[atpollard]

As an aside, some mention has been made of the question of the ”faith” of Adam (as in “did Adam have saving faith”?). While the answer to the salvific Faith of ANY specific individual feels way above my pay grade, I would offer the observation that the faith of salvation is more closely linked to the Hebrew concept of “an action” than the modern concept of “a belief”. The FAITH that saves compels one to act on what they believe to be true. Like the old preacher illustration about believing a man can ride a unicycle across a tight rope, and being willing to ride on his back across that tightrope.

So I leave it to y’all to decide whether scripture indicates that Adam had the sort of faith that compels action (like Abraham drawing a blade or Daniel praying in his window knowing the consequences) or the sort of faith that compels inaction (like the demons who believe and tremble).

 

[Zaatar71]

God has foreknowledge of the free will choices {A, B or C} that man will make not because God determines those choices but because whatever God's foreknowledge is it is of those free will choices that man will make.

Thanks for your timely response. What is the difference then between this "foreknowledge" and what some have mentioned as "prescience"?

Now some will say the man chooses by his greatest desire which is logical as a choice he made would have been his greatest desire at that moment.

Do unsaved people then make such a good choice , apart from the indwelling of the Spirit?

 

[Silverhair]

What is the difference then between this "foreknowledge" and what some have mentioned as "prescience"?

The terms are interchangeable.

"prescience" knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.

Do unsaved people then make such a good choice , apart from the indwelling of the Spirit?

The Holy Spirit convicts sinners of sin, unsaved sinners can respond to the gospel message so that would be a good choice don't you think?

It is after they have trusted in God that they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Act_2:38 those that believe are filled, Act_10:44 Cornelius and his household were filled, Eph_1:13 they heard & belieived then sealed,

Do you see the pattern here. People are not indwelt so they will believe but because they do believe.

 

[Aaron]

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.

Iron doesn't rust itself. Iron is corruptible. It is vulnerable to oxidation. Once it is exposed to oxygen, it is no longer pure iron, but a compound known as iron oxide. That's what I mean by passive. Adam was corruptible, and once introduced to evil, was no longer good, but corrupt.

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

Yes.

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).

Yes. But, sin not being imputed does not mean there is no guilt.

And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. - Leviticus 5:17 KJV

 

[Zaatar71]

The terms are interchangeable.

"prescience" knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.


The Holy Spirit convicts sinners of sin, unsaved sinners can respond to the gospel message so that would be a good choice don't you think?

It is after they have trusted in God that they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Act_2:38 those that believe are filled, Act_10:44 Cornelius and his household were filled, Eph_1:13 they heard & belieived then sealed,

Do you see the pattern here. People are not indwelt so they will believe but because they do believe.

So, if this is so...is Salvation, ie, going from death to life, really the work of the natural man and not a supernatural work of God at all ?
God waits until the natural man brings his own dead spirit to life, then he only gets involved to seal the choice of the natural man after the natural man revives, or regenerates himself? This sounds confusing to me. What am I missing in what you are saying?

 

[JonC]

So, if this is so...is Salvation, ie, going from death to life, really the work of the natural man and not a supernatural work of God at all ?
God waits until the natural man brings his own dead spirit to life, then he only gets involved to seal the choice of the natural man after the natural man revives, or regenerates himself? This sounds confusing to me. What am I missing in what you are saying?

If it helps, Arminianism holds that salvation is completely a work of God and the only thing man can do is merit condemnation.

If I recall, Wesleyan Arminianism is a bit different.

 

[Zaatar71]

If it helps, Arminianism holds that salvation is completely a work of God and the only thing man can do is merit condemnation.

If I recall, Wesleyan Arminianism is a bit different.

Is this the system that the poster silverhair holds then, the first one or the second one?

 

[JonC]

Is this the system that the poster silverhair holds then, the first one or the second one?

I am not sure which position @Silverhair holds.

I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism, but have noticed each often argues past one another rather than addressing one another. But that's kinda the fun dealing with philosophy. We get a chance to move things around.

 

[Silverhair]

So, if this is so...is Salvation, ie, going from death to life, really the work of the natural man and not a supernatural work of God at all ?
God waits until the natural man brings his own dead spirit to life, then he only gets involved to seal the choice of the natural man after the natural man revives, or regenerates himself? This sounds confusing to me. What am I missing in what you are saying?

Think of Lazarus. He was dead and Christ raised him to physical life.

We are dead spiritually, we do not have a relationship with God. God has to raise us to spiritual life.
The Holy Spirit can convict us of sin but will not force us to change. We can hear the gospel message but can ignore those truths. But being separated does not mean that we cannot respond but rather that we have not responded in faith.

God is not just sitting back wringing His hand, He is actively drawing us to Him just as Christ said He would do.

The one that is standing back not getting involved is man. God is a seeker. He is a God who pursues those who are unaware of or even unwilling to know Him. God's seeking of man has been referred to as “prevenient grace.” grace that comes before which is an apt description.

Your choice of words, "seals the deal" is not how I would describe salvation. A person hears the gospel and believes the gospel but God is the only one that can save the person. It is by His grace we are saved through faith.

When you us language such as "seal the deal" it makes salvation sound like something you can earn, a transaction of sorts. That is not a biblical view.

 

[Silverhair]

Is this the system that the poster silverhair holds then, the first one or the second one?

Actually neither. I just trust the word of God as written.

So the best label for me would be Bible Believer.

 

[Zaatar71]

Think of Lazarus. He was dead and Christ raised him to physical life.

Ok, he was physically dead, So God had to do a supernatural work. ok

We are dead spiritually, we do not have a relationship with God. God has to raise us to spiritual life.

earlier I thought you said that man does something first he was dead spiritually

The Holy Spirit can convict us of sin but will not force us to change. We can hear the gospel message but can ignore those truths. But being separated does not mean that we cannot respond but rather that we have not responded in faith.

God is not just sitting back wringing His hand, He is actively drawing us to Him just as Christ said He would do.

The one that is standing back not getting involved is man. God is a seeker. He is a God who pursues those who are unaware of or even unwilling to know Him. God's seeking of man has been referred to as “prevenient grace.” grace that comes before which is an apt description.

Your choice of words, "seals the deal" is not how I would describe salvation. A person hears the gospel and believes the gospel but God is the only one that can save the person. It is by His grace we are saved through faith.

When you us language such as "seal the deal" it makes salvation sound like something you can earn, a transaction of sorts. That is not a biblical view.

 

[Zaatar71]

Think of Lazarus. He was dead and Christ raised him to physical life.

Ok, he was physically dead, So God had to do a supernatural work. ok

We are dead spiritually, we do not have a relationship with God. God has to raise us to spiritual life.

earlier I thought you said that man does something first he was dead spiritually. So the natural man, spiritually dead man believes before he has spiritual life. After he himself believes, then he gets the Spirit?

The Holy Spirit can convict us of sin but will not force us to change.

He cannot influence a natural man, to become a spiritual man?

We can hear the gospel message but can ignore those truths.

Why would a person ignore what he hears? Does that seem strange to you?

But being separated does not mean that we cannot respond but rather that we have not responded in faith.

well then, what does it mean to be separated? In what way are you saying? I am trying to follow this maze,lol

God is not just sitting back wringing His hand, He is actively drawing us to Him just as Christ said He would do.

Drawing a little bit, part way, or all the way to Jesus. How does that happen? you mentioned convicting us of sin. Is that the only way?

The one that is standing back not getting involved is man. God is a seeker. He is a God who pursues those who are unaware of or even unwilling to know Him. God's seeking of man has been referred to as “prevenient grace.” grace that comes before which is an apt description.

Where do you see that teaching of this prevenient grace? What kind of grace is that? is it different than the grace that saves?

Your choice of words, "seals the deal" is not how I would describe salvation. A person hears the gospel and believes the gospel but God is the only one that can save the person. It is by His grace we are saved through faith.

So a person can hear, but not be saved yet? how does he get over the finish line?

When you us language such as "seal the deal" it makes salvation sound like something you can earn, a transaction of sorts. That is not a biblical view.

 

[Silverhair]

earlier I thought you said that man does something first he was dead spiritually. So the natural man, spiritually dead man believes before he has spiritual life. After he himself believes, then he gets the Spirit?

The spiritually dead man does not mean that he cannot reason. The man is not spiritually alive until he is is Christ and that only happens once they believe and God saves them.

He cannot influence a natural man, to become a spiritual man?

What do you mean by influence the man to be a spiritual man? give me an example.

Conviction is influence. Convicting a person of their sin does not save them does it.

They just realize that what they are doing is wrong at some level but that does not mean that they will stop doing what they were doing.

Why would a person ignore what he hears? Does that seem strange to you?

Many people will ignore what they hear. Did you always do what your parents told you to do?

Do you think everyone that hears the gospel turns to God in Faith?

Why someone would reject salvation is a puzzle to me but it is obvious that it does.

well then, what does it mean to be separated? In what way are you saying? I am trying to follow this maze,lol

It is not a maze. If the person does not have a relationship with God he is separated from God. That should not be hard to understand.

Drawing a little bit, part way, or all the way to Jesus. How does that happen? you mentioned convicting us of sin. Is that the only way?

God will provide the various means to draw people to Himself creation, conviction of sin, the gospel message, etc. Whether it is a little bit, part way, or all the way to Jesus would depend upon how the person responds to the drawing wouldn't it. The drawing is not irresistible if that is what you are asking. That is a C/R view that is not from the bible but from that man-made religion.

Where do you see that teaching of this prevenient grace? What kind of grace is that? is it different than the grace that saves?

It is a term that I have seen used to describe the work of God in drawing mankind to Him. The grace as far as I have seen it described is what I refer to as the various means that God used to draw man to Him.

As with any drawing by God it can be resisted

So a person can hear, but not be saved yet? how does he get over the finish line?

It is a term that I have seen used to describe the work of God in drawing mankind to Him. The grace as far as I have seen it described is what I refer to as the various means that God used to draw man to Him.

 

[Aaron]

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.

Actually, less speculation than on your part to assume he did. What does this mean? But still death had power from Adam till Moses, even over those who had not done wrong like Adam... - Romans 5:14 BBE

 

[Aaron]

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.

We're talking about foreknowledge. You said God knew you would choose Him. Did God spare Noah's line to save you (among others), or were you just lucky?

You don't think God could have 'looked down the corridors of time,' as they say, and see anyone else from any other line that would have said yes?

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.

What does that have to do with foreknowledge?

 

[Aaron]

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

How is that foreknowledge? She was His contemporary.

 

[Aaron]

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.

You're still not describing foreknowledge, unless you're saying Abraham was the reason God spared Noah. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings atpollard. I like reading your insights. We don't always agree. But you are often reasonable and rational and biblical... and most of all, friendly.

So my question (inquiring minds want to know) is what is the incompatibility between 1 + 2 and Supralapsarianism?

I'll try and see if I can evaluate myself here.

1. God decreed to allow the fall (so you claim to believe).
2. Therefore Adam and Eve would (must inevitably?) sin (so you claim to believe).
3. Supralapsarianism (You do not agree with this).

Supralapsarianism for me is the assertion that (a) election and reprobation is the first intention of God to create (it has other assertion of course). I don't think one can find this assertion within scripture and as a bonus, I think we can find what was the exact first intent of scripture. To be transparent, I do not deny election. Nor do I deny God's sovereignty. However, as I have said on some other threads. It's not 'God does as He pleases'. It's 'how did God please to do it?'

To answer your question in which you presented a 1-3. It might help for me to make a claim that God did have a purpose, in the form of a decree to keep with the lapidarian language, for "allowing the fall". Supralapsarianism says, or logically says, that purpose was for the elect AND so the reprobate could be reprobated (logical conclusion). I on the other hand contend that the purpose points more toward God the Son then toward the elect.

Lapsarian Order:
1. God the Father’s decree to create for God the Son and that God the Son be the purposeful end of creation, that which all creation culminates toward and in. (Col 1:16, Rom 11:36, Heb 2:10, Rev 22:13, 1:8, 1:11, 21:6)

2. God the Father's decree to put all enemies, seen and unseen, and all principalities and powers under subjection of God the Son, so the full presence of God is manifest in His creation. (1Co 15:24-28, Psa 8:6, Heb 2:8, Eph 6:12, 1Cor 15:24, 1Pe 3:22, Col 2:15, (Rom 1:20))

3. God the Father’s decree to create a world that nurtures its inhabitants, who begin in glory (small ‘g’) and end in Glory (big ‘G’), toward the first intention (many varying verses here).

4. God the Father’s decree to permit a fall of creation through Satan’s deception of Adam and Eve.

So if you look at the logical order (above) of what I think is more in line with the biblical representation of the Lapsarian order. One can notice that logically #4 refers back to #1-3. Further, #2-3 refer back to #1. The purpose, therefore, is for the glory of God the Son (#1, it's all about God the Son). Which ironically is just what every person that holds Supra I speak with, agrees with. That is, all for the glory and honor of God. But then they turn around and hold a model that doesn't start with that. Anyway...

So now to address your points more specifically.

1. God decreed to allow the fall (so you claim to believe).

Yes, I claim that God decreed to allow the fall... through a creation that is for God the Son and culminates toward God the Son (the first intention, #1).

2. Therefore Adam and Eve would (must inevitably?) sin (so you claim to believe).

Well, I'm not exactly sure of your point. Especially since your #3.

If God decrees to allow a fall, then yes, it will happen (many forms of libertarian free will are then eliminated as accurate) But notice my #3? God decreed to create mankind and creation in a state of glory (small 'g'). This doesn't mean not perfect, but means not complete (because God intends that all things culminate toward its intended end) Why did God create us 'small 'g''? Refer to #2, then #1. #2 is God's desire, I think, to reveal His full presence within creation. Anyway...

This seems to be acceptable to me, since the logically inevitability seems to biblically follow (and that Im a compatablist). Supralapsarianism, on the other hand, leads to biblical contradiction, imo. When election and reprobation are the first intent (and before the fall), then God becomes the logical first cause of evil, imo. For he has decreed a reprobate that has not yet sinned (logically). Now God needs to logically decree something that makes them reprobated.

As a final twist, that I have never presented to you before. I actually think that the Bible teaches that the elect, within the lapidarian order, are actually last (not first). For the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Peace to you brother