Is Man a Free Moral Agent?

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by 4study:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes, Bob it is Amazing - And you and I don't have as much to do with it as we usually try to give ourselves credit.

One thing I've never understood, so perhaps someone can explain it to me, is why "choice" seems to equall "man gets credit" in Calvinism theology. In my mind, "free will", "choice" or whatever term one uses to describe it, doesn't suggest that at all.</font>[/QUOTE]Then Tell me 4 Study how Free Will works in the Salvation experience of a person. Better yet tell me how it worked in your personal salvation.

Thanks,

J Shaver

 

[Hardsheller]

Bob,

You've never told us yet why - When you said yes to Jesus and you could have said no that you didn't.

How 'bout just an old fashioned personal testimony?

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The real difference we are seeing in this thread is that one side says God draws the sinner and the sinner finishes the job, while the other side says God draws the sinner and He finishes the job with the sinner in the loving arms of Jesus.

I agree - this topic is where we really differ.

So going with that difference - I would say that your "finishes the job" ending applies equally to "God Created Adam as a prefect sinnless being able to CHOOSE between good and evil and then Adam Finishes the Job".

In Christ,

Bob</font>[/QUOTE]But that argument doesn't fly because Adam was not just like us and we are are not just like Adam. Adam was created before Sin entered the world and was sinless. He then chose to sin and thus sin entered into the world and contaminated all the rest of us.

 

[4study]

Hardshell,

Then Tell me 4 Study how Free Will works in the Salvation experience of a person. Better yet tell me how it worked in your personal salvation.

1. Convicting (convincing) of Holy Spirit.
2. Person knows he/she needs God.
3. Person chooses to agree/accept truth ("Yes, I need God") or reject truth ("I know I need God but I don't want Him"). If person agrees, new birth occurs.

This is what happened to me.

Would you be interested in further answering my questions? Why does "choice" equal "man gets credit"?

 

[4study]

Everyone,

But that argument doesn't fly because Adam was not just like us and we are are not just like Adam. Adam was created before Sin entered the world and was sinless

Was Adam really sinless? Or was his righteous, sinless, state an imputed one? If the later, then he is no different than we are.

What is SIN? What does it mean that "as by one man SIN entered into the world"? If we believe this was tied to the events of Gen. 3, then we hold to the view that SIN is an act. Yet Jesus said for "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5:28). Is SIN an act or does it include potential?

Adam was created with imputed righteousness.

By virtue of his state, Adam is Rom. 3:23 BEFORE THE FALL.

After settling this, then consider Adam's nature and whether "choice" is part of it or not.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by 4study:
1) Was Adam really sinless?

2) Is sin an act or does it include potential?

1) Adam was truly sinless - he had not sinned. Sinlessness was not imputed to him.

2) Sin is an act. Otherwise, if one has a bad thought then there would be no difference between thinking it and acting on it. And our thoughts also lead to action.

When Cain was thinking about killing Abel God told him -

Genesis 4:7(NASB)
7 “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

God told him that sin wanted him to kill Abel, but he was not yet guilty of giving in to it. But he eventually did so.

There is a difference between being tempted and actually planning to perform an action given the opportunity, which is what I believe Jesus was talking about when he talked about committing adultery in one's heart by lusting after a woman that is not one's wife.

 

[4study]

Ken H,

Interesting. Thank you for being so candid. I wasn’t sure how my comments would be taken.

1) Adam was truly sinless - he had not sinned. Sinlessness was not imputed to him.

So do you think sinlessness was part of his nature? An inherent attribute? If so, then Adam's nature changed. Does NATURE change? We know God's nauture doesn't but what about human beings?

IMO, Nature does not change. I.e, Adam was an eternal creature before/after the fall. Adam was body/soul/spirit before/after the fall. Holiness, righteousness, sinlessness, etc., can never be attributes of human beings unless imputed by God.

2) Sin is an act. Otherwise, if one has a bad thought then there would be no difference between thinking it and acting on it. And our thoughts also lead to action.

There is a difference between being tempted and actually planning to perform an action given the opportunity, which is what I believe Jesus was talking about when he talked about committing adultery in one's heart by lusting after a woman that is not one's wife.

I see this differently. I believe a “bad thought” needs to be covered by the blood just as much as a “bad act” does. Otherwise, we’d only be accountable for what we perform. “Hast committed adultery already in his heart” in Matt 5:28 as I understand, is referencing accountability. No, he hasn’t done anything, but before God, he’s just as guilty.

Regardless, this is your theology and I thank you for your comments.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by 4study:
I.e, Adam was an eternal creature before/after the fall. Adam was body/soul/spirit before/after the fall. Holiness, righteousness, sinlessness, etc., can never be attributes of human beings unless imputed by God.

I believe immortality is conditional - granted by God. Only God is inherently immortal or eternal.

Adam was different from us as he did not come into being with a sin nature. Adam was created perfect. He had no need for anything to be imputed to him to live eternally. He simply had to obey God's law.

Adam and Eve had true free choice as truly free moral agents. We do not.

[ December 23, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Ken H ]

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
So going with that difference - I would say that your "finishes the job" ending applies equally to "God Created Adam as a prefect sinnless being able to CHOOSE between good and evil and then Adam Finishes the Job".

Ken

But that argument doesn't fly because Adam was not just like us and we are are not just like Adam. Adam was created before Sin entered the world and was sinless. He then chose to sin and thus sin entered into the world and contaminated all the rest of us.

Actually that point only worsens the case for Calvinism.

#1. The Arminian point is that EVEN Adam in his sinless state - could CHOOSE sin. Mankind in a SINFUL state - that is ALSO EANBLED by the Drawing of John 12:32 - is not in a BETTER state than SINLESS Adam. Calvinism is forced to argue that the SINNERs are in a much BETTER state than Adam and will always CHOOSE life when they are ENABLED.

#2. Your point above was that if God sovereignly establishes conditions supernaturally but then man is allowed to CHOOSE in such a way that either promotes God's starting condition - or that derails it - then "man is finishing the job". But that is EXACTLY what we see with Lucifer and Adam and even the unfallen Angels. God's established conditions were either changed or promoted by subsequent choices that HE gave His creation. You seem to want to call that "Man Finishing the Job".

My point is that such generalties as you are making - have application far beyond sinful mankind - and that shows it to fail.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by 4study:
Why does "choice" equal "man gets credit"?

For the same reason Adam's "choice" equalled "man gets blamed."

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. The Arminian point is that EVEN Adam in his sinless state - could CHOOSE sin.

First, I would call Adam innocent, not sinless. It's not that the word "sinless" isn't accurate. It is an inadequate description, however, since Adam did not know good and evil before he sinned. Calling him sinless also makes it sound almost as if Adam was on par with Jesus.

Second, I would also say that Adam could choose sin. I suspect Calvinists would say that, too. So I don't get your point.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Mankind in a SINFUL state - that is ALSO EANBLED by the Drawing of John 12:32 - is not in a BETTER state than SINLESS Adam. Calvinism is forced to argue that the SINNERs are in a much BETTER state than Adam and will always CHOOSE life when they are ENABLED.

You are forcing your own views on the process, which IMO is the root of your error. You automatically attribute the power to choose God to man's ability. In that context, of course it doesn't make sense that a sinner would be in a better state than Adam.

But Calvinists attribute the power to God, not man. If you could get out of your man-centric mindset long enough to see that, you'd understand that it is far better to be a sinner with the power of God turning your will toward Him -- than to be Adam, who was a free moral agent and was innocent, but who had to rely entirely upon his moral impotence to make the right choice.

And we all know how well he was able to apply his free moral agency. So if anything, your contrast defends Calvinism. If Adam chose wrong, and he had a free will unencumbered by a sinful nature, how could one possibly be so foolish as to presume that sinners would choose salvation of their own free will, even if God "enabled" them to make the choice?

The answer is that we wouldn't. Fortunately, God does not "enable" us to choose and then wait for us to make a decision. He turns our will toward Him.

And a hearty "Praise God" for that!

 

[4study]

Ken H,

Adam was created perfect. He had no need for anything to be imputed to him to live eternally.

Really? What makes you believe this? Is “perfect” part of Adam’s nature? If so, then what were his dependencies upon God? If he was created “perfect” could he keep his own state of being so? Obviously, he didn’t remain “perfect”, so perhaps he wasn’t so “perfect” after all (excuse my sarcasm, no offense intended). If Adam had to depend upon God for his state of being “perfect”, then Adam was not inherently “perfect” and thus it was not part of his nature.

Either nature changes or it doesn’t. If nature can change, is it really nature? I believe it to be of utmost importance in our theology to determine what Adam’s nature is. Our answer will ultimately determine what we believe about choice.

 

[4study]

npetreley,

For the same reason Adam's "choice" equalled "man gets blamed."

Sorry, I don’t understand your comment. The only correlation I can make is to the office of Adam in that “he was the figure of him that was to come”. In that sense, none of us were or ever will be in such an office. So “man gets blamed” is with regard to office not person. I think we’re talking about person here (i.e. the choice any individual makes). I guess what my question is referring to is a connotation that exists. “Choice” always seems to suggest “man’s credit” to Calvinism.

 

[4study]

npetreley,

…since Adam did not know good and evil before he sinned.

I’ve been thinking on this actually for the last few weeks. How innocent was Adam? What do we mean when we say he was “innocent”? Most of the time, we think of a child who is not held accountable for right or wrong. However, Adam was definitely held accountable. If he didn’t know anything whatsoever between good and evil, how could he have been intelligent enough to keep the commands God gave Him?

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 5 presents Christ as the second Adam. Both were sinnless from the start. Both were tempted - but Adam chose to fall - Christ chose obedience "to the point of death on the cross".

As much as we might want to insert other aspects into this - the point is clear.

Phil 2 - says Christ as God emptied himself before coming to earth - Heb 4:15 points out that he was tempted in all points as we ARE yet "without sin". Christ succeeded where Adam failed according to Romans 5.

As man Christ could be tempted, He could say that only the Father new the time of the 2nd coming, He could get hungry and tired, He could die on the cross - as God He could not have any of that applied to Him - so when He came to earth - He came in sinless human nature - to enable the weaknesses therein and succeed where Adam failed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[massdak]

Originally posted by Ken H:
I had not intended to re-engage in this forum until in the new year but I was reading in an article from a website today at www.hisremnant.org/eby/articles/savior/moralagent.html b]

it is interesting how some use the gospel to first say that God loves you and that it is not God who sends you to hell but the person sends themselves to hell by not making a decision for Christ. falwell said this on donahue that a person sends him or herself to hell by rejection, do you think that is a biblical statement?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by 4study:
How innocent was Adam? What do we mean when we say he was “innocent”? ... If he didn’t know anything whatsoever between good and evil, how could he have been intelligent enough to keep the commands God gave Him?

Knowing good and evil has nothing to do with intelligence. But that's beside the point. To arrive at any other conclusion than Adam did not know good and evil would contradict scripture...

Genesis 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by 4study:
Sorry, I don’t understand your comment. The only correlation I can make is to the office of Adam in that “he was the figure of him that was to come”. In that sense, none of us were or ever will be in such an office. So “man gets blamed” is with regard to office not person. I think we’re talking about person here (i.e. the choice any individual makes). I guess what my question is referring to is a connotation that exists. “Choice” always seems to suggest “man’s credit” to Calvinism.

All I was saying was that Adam had free will, chose to disobey, and was "credited" with responsibility for his decision so much that the whole human race was cursed as a result.

In turn, if we have the free will to choose salvation, we deserve at least SOME credit for making the "right" choice, even if not as much as Adam deserved punishment for making the wrong one. (IMO, we would deserve MORE credit, since we would be making this choice in spite of our sinful nature). But I don't believe we have free will, therefore the point is moot.

 

[4study]

npetreley,

I know we’re getting away from the topic of this thread but I’ll continue as long as anyone else would like.

Knowing good and evil has nothing to do with intelligence. But that's beside the point. To arrive at any other conclusion than Adam did not know good and evil would contradict scripture...

I think we would both agree that Adam and Eve were given commands BEFORE Gen. 3. Adam, especially, was accountable to those commands. One in particular, if he chose to disobey it, would bring death. Now, if Adam had no iota of understanding between good and evil, why was he held accountable for his choices? To me, he was responsible for his choices BECAUSE he was created with the intelligence to understand right from wrong. Did he know he was doing wrong when he ate of the tree? Yes. Otherwise, we’re saying Adam didn’t understand what he was doing during his act of disobedience and thus, IMO, shouldn’t have been held accountable. I suppose this also has to do with what we believe the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" is. Another topic altogether.

In turn, if we have the free will to choose salvation, we deserve at least SOME credit for making the "right" choice, even if not as much as Adam deserved punishment for making the wrong one.

I understand what you’re saying now. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

I guess I just don’t believe we deserve any credit for making the “right” choice. I also believe Adam didn’t deserve any credit for making the “right” choice for however long he lived in the garden before making the “wrong” one. IMO, his choice in Gen. 3, primarily has to do with his office as the “figure of him that was to come”.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by 4study:
Adam, especially, was accountable to those commands. One in particular, if he chose to disobey it, would bring death. Now, if Adam had no iota of understanding between good and evil, why was he held accountable for his choices?

He was held accountable because he did not have enough faith in God (faith that God had a good reason for telling him not to eat of the tree) to obey the command. Knowing good and evil is irrelevant in this matter. He was told what to do, what not to do, and the consequences of disobeying. That's very simple, and it doesn't take any knowledge of good and evil to understand and obey it.

Originally posted by 4study:
To me, he was responsible for his choices BECAUSE he was created with the intelligence to understand right from wrong.

Then you are adding something to the Bible that is not only missing from the text, but contradicts the text.

Originally posted by 4study:
Did he know he was doing wrong when he ate of the tree? Yes. Otherwise, we’re saying Adam didn’t understand what he was doing during his act of disobedience and thus, IMO, shouldn’t have been held accountable.

He knew he was disobeying God. That would be true whether or not he knew good from evil, and it is enough for him to be held responsible.