The Fallacy of Freewill

[ivdavid]

Christ has redeemed us from death(1), effective immediately after Adam's transgression, so that Adam's transgression has never affected any man after him - thereby letting each man deal with his own freewill with respect to choosing for or against just death(2).

Why is man unable to keep the law perfectly after the fall - is it because of inherited death(1) of Adam causing us to sin and refraining us from keeping the law perfectly? - Correct.

When you say Christ has redeemed us from inherited death(1) - how exactly do you mean this? Is it in the sense of redemption from only the final result of this inheritance, namely from dying and loss of eternal life - or is it in the sense of redemption from this inheritance itself, inclusive of all and any part of its effects/influences?

If you meant it in the latter way, then, when you say Christ has redeemed us from inherited death(1) - must that not imply that the effects/influences of this inherited death do not affect man at all and hence he should be free to keep the law perfectly after all? If Christ did redeem us from this inheritance itself, then this inherited death can no longer cause us to sin and refrain us from keeping the law perfectly. And we know this isn't the case - which compels me to conclude that you meant this redemption in the former way.

But even so, if Christ redeemed us only from the final result and not the effects/influences of this inherited death(1) - for we know its influences in that people have been subject to bondage all their lives through their fear of death(1)[Heb 2:15] and also given the fact that none can keep the law perfectly - can you then categorically say that "Adam's transgression has never affected any man after him"? Or maybe you meant it not affecting any man after him in terms of the end result alone - and not in terms of the losses in-between.

But let us consider the losses in-between then, starting with the losses described in Heb 2:15 where people are subject to bondage all their lives through their fear of inherited death(1). Who are these people of Heb 2:15 - are they OT people or present day NT people too? Whatever the case, does it not imply that a particular group of people had the fear of death(1) all their lives until they were redeemed by Christ's work? How then is Christ's redemptive work effective immediately after Adam's transgression - or did you mean it as an overall effective work which then is individually applied to people at different times of their lives? Is baptism this particular time of application in people's lives or is the time of application simply arbitrary?

The converse of death(1) would then be an eternal and corruption-free nature which we could label as say life(1)

When you say Christ has redeemed us from death(1), it implies we have been redeemed into life(1) - ie we have a corruption-free nature. Would you say that we have been given a corruption-free nature when Christ's redemptive work is applied to us - if not, I am compelled to understand you as saying that Christ redeemed us in principle only and not yet in reality from the corrupt nature that we have as a consequence of inherited death(1). In that sense, this redemption is still a future event but since Christ has promised this, it can be rested upon as a certainty. Is this how you meant it?

Also, would you hold the fear of death(1) itself to be the cause of our sinning or would you hold the corruption that it has engendered and resulted in, to be the cause of our sinning? If it's the former, those redeemed by Christ need no longer be refrained from keeping the law perfectly. And if it's the latter which seems more likely, then will not such corruption-caused-sinning anyway lead to spiritual death(2) apart from Christ's intervening? If Christ's redemptive work does not deal with this corruption here, and instead deals with only the result of death(1), then won't we anyway head along inevitably to death(2)? Which brings us back to the question - what exactly did Christ's redemptive work entail? Is it on principle or is it in reality? What are all its effects and where all are they seen?

I see here that you have distinguished between two kinds of death - (1) the inherited death of Adam because of his transgression and (2) the spiritual death which is the breaking of our relationship with God.

Could you relate both these deaths in the context of man entering the kingdom of God and resting in His presence forever. I mean, don't both these deaths per se signify one and the same thing - loss of eternal life ie loss of being in the presence of God forever? Or are they characteristically different from one another? I'm not asking how they are brought about - whether by Adam's transgression or our own - no, I'm simply asking what they are, themselves. How does the one death differ from the other as per the concept of death itself? Or are they the same effectively, differing only in their cause?

In Deut 27:26, does the curse refer to curse(2) of being apart from God's relationship unto spiritual death(2) or does it refer to curse(1) - the inherited death(1) of Adam?

relational, apart from God.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:10 quotes Deut 27:26, which deals with curse(2), to draw the inference that as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse(2).

Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
v.10 talks about the law resulting in the curse(2). v.11 further builds up the case to show that there is no justification possible by the law - by quoting that the just shall live(2) by faith. But what is the connection between "no justification by the law" and "justification by faith" that the former should be inferred from the latter?

Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
v.12 gives the connection required in v.11 - "the law is not of faith" - and it quotes Lev 18:5 as the law - implying that there is no justification unto life(2) to be gained from the Lev 18:5 law since it is not of faith.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
While v.10 introduced the problem of all those under the law being under the curse(2) there, v.13 here gives the solution - in Christ redeeming us from the curse of v.10, namely the curse(2).

This Galatians passage seems to talk of only life(2) and curse(2) w.r.t. the Lev and Deut passages. How did you come to understand these as just life(1) and curse(1) references, given the context and the Scriptural quotes?

 

[Cassian]

ivdavid,

When you say Christ has redeemed us from inherited death(1) - how exactly do you mean this? Is it in the sense of redemption from only the final result of this inheritance, namely from dying and loss of eternal life - or is it in the sense of redemption from this inheritance itself, inclusive of all and any part of its effects/influences?

It means life was restored through Christ resulting in an eternal existance. Christ did not change a single consequence for this life.

Man is still mortal in this life, will die once, the physical death. Sin is still with us, Christ did not eradicate sin and satan is still seeking to devour.

But let us consider the losses in-between then, starting with the losses described in Heb 2:15 where people are subject to bondage all their lives through their fear of inherited death(1).

Christ redeemed mankind from the bondage to death and sin. We are no longer condemned to death. We are free to choose spiritual life or death, sin is no longer a bondage either. Christ's sacrifice for sin and the availablity of forgiveness frees man who has chosen to live in Christ to be forgiven of those sins he does commit. He is striving to perfection, to curb sinful habits, to grow to mature in righteousness working with the Holy Spirit.

When you say Christ has redeemed us from death(1), it implies we have been redeemed into life(1) - ie we have a corruption-free nature. Would you say that we have been given a corruption-free nature when Christ's redemptive work is applied to us - if not, I am compelled to understand you as saying that Christ redeemed us in principle only and not yet in reality from the corrupt nature that we have as a consequence of inherited death(1). In that sense, this redemption is still a future event but since Christ has promised this, it can be rested upon as a certainty. Is this how you meant it?

precisely. it was meant that way from God's perspective in Gen 3:15. Christ's advents are markers in history and it will not be until the very end that the consequences and influences of Adam's fall will end.

Also, would you hold the fear of death(1) itself to be the cause of our sinning or would you hold the corruption that it has engendered and resulted in, to be the cause of our sinning? If it's the former, those redeemed by Christ need no longer be refrained from keeping the law perfectly. And if it's the latter which seems more likely, then will not such corruption-caused-sinning anyway lead to spiritual death(2) apart from Christ's intervening? If Christ's redemptive work does not deal with this corruption here, and instead deals with only the result of death(1), then won't we anyway head along inevitably to death(2)? Which brings us back to the question - what exactly did Christ's redemptive work entail? Is it on principle or is it in reality? What are all its effects and where all are they seen?

death is corruption, but it is the corruption that causes us to sin easily.
One cannot separate Christ from redemption. If Christ had not come, sin has no bearing whatsoever on what man does nor does not so. He could have lived perfectly, or imperfectily, he was still condemned to death, ceasing to exist as God created man.

Christ's sacrifice makes possible the forgiveness of sin in our journey of being perfected. We will sin and because we do, those sins need to be confessed so they can be forgiven. Sins not confesses are retained and can convict. This is the whole jouney of salvation. Man's constant working with the Holy Spirit, freely desiring to be faithful to what Christ expects from us His children. We are going to be judged on what we do with Christ.

Could you relate both these deaths in the context of man entering the kingdom of God and resting in His presence forever. I mean, don't both these deaths per se signify one and the same thing - loss of eternal life ie loss of being in the presence of God forever? Or are they characteristically different from one another? I'm not asking how they are brought about - whether by Adam's transgression or our own - no, I'm simply asking what they are, themselves. How does the one death differ from the other as per the concept of death itself? Or are they the same effectively, differing only in their cause?

If man remained condemned to death, physical annihilation, separation of body and soul, and returning to dust permanently, then any effort to have a relationship with Christ is null and void. It can happen only in this life, but we were not created to life only a mortal life, but an eternal one with God.

Christ gave man, the world, an eternal existance so that each and every man could freely choose whether to be in a relationship with God or reject Him.
they are two very distinct differing forms of death. One is physical, the other is relational. The latter cannot exist without the former.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Gal 3:10 quotes Deut 27:26, which deals with curse(2), to draw the inference that as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse(2).
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

v.10 talks about the law resulting in the curse(2). v.11 further builds up the case to show that there is no justification possible by the law - by quoting that the just shall live(2) by faith. But what is the connection between "no justification by the law" and "justification by faith" that the former should be inferred from the latter?

Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

v.12 gives the connection required in v.11 - "the law is not of faith" - and it quotes Lev 18:5 as the law - implying that there is no justification unto life(2) to be gained from the Lev 18:5 law since it is not of faith.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

While v.10 introduced the problem of all those under the law being under the curse(2) there, v.13 here gives the solution - in Christ redeeming us from the curse of v.10, namely the curse(2).

This Galatians passage seems to talk of only life(2) and curse(2) w.r.t. the Lev and Deut passages. How did you come to understand these as just life(1) and curse(1) references, given the context and the Scriptural quotes?

The connection is that for man keeping the law perfectly will not ever give him life, that is eternal existance. It will not overcome physical death. Therefore Christ performed this for us. By His death, and resurrection as the Incarnated Christ, overcame death. All we need to do now is believe that Christ did in fact overcome death. That belief is called justification by faith. By that belief we enter into His Kingdom through baptism and begin to live a life after his example. Christ becomes our model and example to perfection and where we fail in that relationship, we can seek forgiveness. We live a life of being continually transformed into His Likeness. That is the content of our personal salvation, and it all depends on man's free will.

 

[heymikey80]

Re: Thanks for the conversation

Actually, the root of Calvinism is Augustine. Calvin was the first one to take the idea of predestination and flesh it out into a complete system of theology. What everyone has done since is refined, redefined, built upon it, but in the end, the whole doctrine of predestination as understood in reformed theology today, as it is called today, is rooted in a chain backward from calvin, to Augustine and Manicheanism/Gnosticism.

The root of Calvinism is Paul, through Augustine, yes, but it's Paul.

There is no apostolic teaching of such a notion. It has never been a teaching of scripture until Calvin. It is called Calvinism for a reason. It has never been a teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years. So it is hardly deceiving anyone but pointing out some historical and theological facts.

It's a bit myopic to assert that Augustine didn't teach what he taught in order to demand that Calvinism wasn't taught for the last 2000 years.

For that matter, nor Paul.

So, Paul, and to an extent Peter, taught items which appear in an organized way in Calvinism, and don't seem consistently represented in other theologies. What to do to avoid these facts?

You don't have any verse that says any individual is predestined to do anything.

Y'mean, 1 Pt 2:8? "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."

ONly two times is the word used, and I believe, if my memory is correct two other words that have the same meaning. HOwever in no instance is man being predestined. YOu have a theory a philosophy of Calvin that is wholly a man made theory, and has never been a teaching of scripture.

Well, actually Paul said "those who were predestined" (Rom 8:28), which would refer to people, right?

And your comment of either accepting Christ and then doing His will, or you are dammed, is as straightforward free will as there ever will be. It is a direct contradiction to the verses you are so adament about regarding predestination. They are mutually exclusive terms. So, now you have a belief that holds two opposite views.

Um, well actually that's a question of what your inclinations are, not how your inclinations are affected or influenced.

more confusion over terms. Free will has nothing to do with God not interfering or being providential. It requires it. Man does not create his own options or choices. In other words man is not autonomous. What it means is that man taking the options available makes his own choice. Both God and satan, and our own flesh can influence us, but neither God, Satan or your flesh makes the decision. It is your will, your desire. The fulcrum of all of man's actions is the will, and the will if free to act unencumbered by force.

Technically that's the concept of "free agency", which Calvinism itself doesn't object to.

I think you actually don't understand the concept of free will. Isn't any wonder your comments don't make sense relative to free will.

Uh, maybe a review of the concept would be significant to clarifying the point?

because she is a human being. She of her own free will followed the guidelines, followed the options that were before her. She does the same thing you do when a traffic cop tells you to take a detour. YOu can obey, or you can knock him down and proceed. Why do you think we were given a rational soul. Do you not think man can reason based on the conditions, options, influences, providence places before him? Or do you interpret the word, direct our paths as forced us to take that path?

As is normal with us, the choices aren't always clear, either. That's due to our wills and thinking also being corrupted.

and this is a great example of God's foreknowledge, providence and man's free will. NOt a thing needed to be predestined in order to happen. God does this all the time. If He knows something, do you think He is incapable of directing it without predestination?

But to the point, if God knew everything beforehand; and God and nothing else is the cause of everything; the result would still be predestinarian.

Predestination is fate, in it more modern form it is Deism. It is making God completely and only transcendent and not operating in His created order. He is just sitting on His throne and the plan is simply running as He predestined it.

Sorry, it's not. It's much more than that. Reducing predestination to fate is a reflection of how little is understood about Calvin, who would've "gone off" on anyone calling this "fate" -- the technical term for fatalism. Neither is contemplated in Calvinistic predestination.

NO, I understand him quite well. Both calvin and a lot of other theologians have worked 500 years trying to free God from the condemning notion that God must then cause you to sin as well. Unless, unlike Calvin, you will claim that no Christian ever sins again upon being saved by faith only.

Hm, with those missteps it would appear that maybe a reinvestigation of some of the basics in "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and "Eternal Predestination" and "Hidden Providence" might be in order, to avoid a mischaracterization.

That granted, people on the other side are often excessive in their characterization of Calvinism as well. It is admittedly much more "right" of embracing an independent human will. But it is definitely also a rejection of God's moral culpability for desiring evil, or for human compulsion, or for the suppression of human will.

If you want I can provide examples, but they'd be some extra investigation. I used to do that a lot; but I tended to repeat myself, and after awhile it became boring.

 

[Cassian]

Re: Thanks for the conversation

heymikey80,

The root of Calvinism is Paul, through Augustine, yes, but it's Paul.

not unless you can show some evidence outside of your assertion. Calvinism is based solely upon the premise of Predestination, a concept first brought into the Christian world by Augustine. It is actually part of his background in Manicheanism/Gnosticism.

Outside of Augustine there is no hint of such a doctrine as well as the secondary tenets of TULIP that were later developed. Calvinism is a wholly man made theory imposed upon scripture.

It's a bit myopic to assert that Augustine didn't teach what he taught in order to demand that Calvinism wasn't taught for the last 2000 years.

There is no record of his teachings until several centuries later. Anselm took his view of Total depravity and develped the satisfaction theory. The RCC did not even adopt the Original Sin theory until the Council of Trent. Abelard added to Anselms theory, and then Calvin added the penal part to the theory.

Calvinism is Calvinism and it was wholly a new systematic theology that Calvin built, developed and actually is still being developed, honed, and enhanced. It could hardly be the Gospel of Christ once Given and preserved from the beginning. It will continue to change to the whims of man.

So, Paul, and to an extent Peter, taught items which appear in an organized way in Calvinism, and don't seem consistently represented in other theologies. What to do to avoid these facts?

What sepecifically would that be, since it is not predestination, nor TULIP?

Y'mean, 1 Pt 2:8? "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."

We were all destined to disobedience through Adam - Rom 11:32, so that Christ could show mercy to all.

YOu see the word predestine or appoint and we have a whole new theory whether the context says so or not. Or that it has never been so understood from the beginning. It is also a comparison with the next verse which is the opposite of appointed or destined to believe.

Well, actually Paul said "those who were predestined" (Rom 8:28), which would refer to people, right?

no, acts upon those people were predestined - to be made holy, blameless and conformed to His Image. If one believes, becomes an elect, He has the promise of God that the Holy Spirit will work with those to become Christlike. Man can reject that relationship at any time.

Um, well actually that's a question of what your inclinations are, not how your inclinations are affected or influenced.

Calvinism but not scripture. It is how we are influenced that makes our inclinations to chose one or the other.

Technically that's the concept of "free agency", which Calvinism itself doesn't object to

but only within a Calvinistic theology. Which is also contradictory within itself. The theory makes no sense whatsoever with scripture. This statement goes right back to the one immediately preceding this. It is based on the idea of total depravity and the whole theological justification of how God gets man to repond to Him by decree.

Uh, maybe a review of the concept would be significant to clarifying the point?

I'm not the one with the problem of understanding a principle that has been taught, understood without question for 2000 years of understanding the Gospel of Christ. It is not the view of Calvinism which is quite obvious.

As is normal with us, the choices aren't always clear, either. That's due to our wills and thinking also being corrupted.

whether a choice is clear, or muddy does not change the fact we have a free will. All men's will have been corrupted, but not totally depraved as taught by Calvin.

But to the point, if God knew everything beforehand; and God and nothing else is the cause of everything; the result would still be predestinarian.

God is not the cause of everything first of all. Predestination is not necessary if God knows all things. Predestination is based on foreknowledge so it need not be predestined in order to occur.

Sorry, it's not. It's much more than that. Reducing predestination to fate is a reflection of how little is understood about Calvin, who would've "gone off" on anyone calling this "fate" -- the technical term for fatalism. Neither is contemplated in Calvinistic predestination.

Of course it is. Calvin just made it a christian concept by inserting it in his theory based on his personal interpretation of scripture.
Boettner says the very same thing. He states it outright that it is fate, but the difference is that God is doing it and not some unknown force. It's a pagen concept with christian garb.

Calvin and other have tried valiantly to get around it, but it is not possible. It is why the predestination is not scriptural.

Hm, with those missteps it would appear that maybe a reinvestigation of some of the basics in "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and "Eternal Predestination" and "Hidden Providence" might be in order, to avoid a mischaracterization.

basics of the intstitutes will not make it any more scriptural than it has been for the last 500 years.

That granted, people on the other side are often excessive in their characterization of Calvinism as well. It is admittedly much more "right" of embracing an independent human will. But it is definitely also a rejection of God's moral culpability for desiring evil, or for human compulsion, or for the suppression of human will.

Calvinism unless outright rejected will never align with scripture. It may be developed to a different theology than it is now, as has happened over the last 500 years. As long as it is based on Calvin's theory of predestination and as stated in the Westminster Confessions, it will never align with scripture as it has always been understood from the beginning.

If you want I can provide examples, but they'd be some extra investigation. I used to do that a lot; but I tended to repeat myself, and after awhile it became boring.

that won't be necessary. I am familiar with all the arguments of Calvinism.