Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation?

[T.K. Brown]

T.K. Brown



How we are when born by our natural parents, how we are out our mothers.

Makes sense to me. Barring some sort of miraculous intervention, I don't see how a babe could possibly understand God.

Our faith and journey to God requires a journey through the world God creates (and for God to create us). My point was simply that I don't like explanations that seems to require a sort of "magical autopilot," for people to come to God. It seems to me that God leads people to faith through diverse means. God frequently uses history to shape the faith of the covenant people for example.

Man cannot lead himself to God because man is not self-creating and because man lives in a fallen world, in sin, beset on all sides by instinct, desire, and circumstance. Reason can show him the signs of God (Romans 1) and we may see our need for God (Romans 7, Paul delights in God's law in his inner soul while fallen, but cannot follow God due to sin), but only by grace are we led to repentance and faith. Our own control over our lives is limited. We are only free over desire, instinct, and circumstance — free over over selves — to the extent we are in God, by grace.

But when Jesus says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37), I take it that repentance for Jerusalem was not metaphysically impossible. Rather, repentance was blocked by the will and nature of the inhabitants of the city.

My problem with Catholic theology is that it often seems to invoke a two tiered grace: a first, universal grace, and then a contingent grace "chosen through free will." My problem with Reformed Theology is when it seems to suppose a sort of divine autopilot is required for man to repent. These issues seem to stem from the coherence issues of libertarian free will itself.

It seems more to me like we are not free when our actions are "determined by nothing that comes before," but rather when we are unified as a rational while and choose what we truly think is good while also knowing the true good. Plato got at this when he proposed that only reason could "unify the soul." It could do this because reason let us know the true good, and men want "what is really good, not just what they currently believe to be good." But the true good is God, and God is creator of all, and thus the only way we learn of God. God is infinite, and so we can only experience God's true nature by God reaching out to us.

Calvin echos Plato: "The will must choose what the understanding judges to be good." IMO, Calvin's work is fairly compatible with compatibilism. What seems to cause confusion and disagreement is the means by which the Spirit overcomes man's sinful nature. Is this always through supernatural overpowering of the human will, the "auto pilot," complaint, or through Divine Providence, and thus fathomable means (which supports the usefulness of evangelism). I don't find Calvin himself always clear, but it seems more like the latter, in which case I don't think the Reformed view is actually as far from the Catholic, Lutheran or Orthodox view as people might assume.

Individual versus corporate election still seems like a key difference though, but also less pressing. If God chooses individuals based on nothing we can know, and if we know the elect by their membership in the "Body of Christ," then corporate and individual election also start to look closer.

 

[wondering]

Freedom is a self-contradictory idea, at least if taken as "absolute freedom from all restraint." However, I think if we examine these contradictions we begin to see the numerous ways in which we are free, resulting in a sort of "typology" of freedom.

You're speaking about philosophical freedom and I'm speaking about biblical freedom.
They do overlap.
I don't believe we could have "absolute freedom from all restrain".
This would badly damage ourselves and our society in general.
Also, we cannot fly.
Also, our governments keep us from having absolute freedom - for instance, using heroine is illegal.

There is "negative freedom," the freedom from restraint. Then we can consider "positive freedom," the freedom "to do" something, e.g. the "freedom to study to be a doctor." Positive freedom comes with constraints on negative freedom. To be "free to become a good father," we have to wake up with our kids in the middle of the night, do things we don't necessarily want to do, etc. So we have a freedom to take on "duties" as part of our identity.

Agreed.
We're free to become a parent - but then some freedoms are taken away and necessarily so.

"Social freedom," then looks at the way people can empower or frustrate other's development of freedom. Society empowers us, e.g. things like universal education, but it also constrains us. So there are very many levels, each contradiction gives us new ways to express our freedom and new constraints.



It seems to me that it can't be one or the other. If I choose to do something, and I am not ruled over by instinct and desire, then I choose that thing because of the way the world is. Yet God makes the world. In this way, God seems to determine our actions.

The above sounds dangerously close to determinism and I don't believe God determines our every movement.
God made the world with humans in it and He gave to humans one of His attributes: Freedom of choice.
However, I agree with everything else you've said.

However, I don't see this as making us unfree. We are free when we do what we want to do and don't do what we don't want to do. Further, we are free when this is the case and we are our authentic selves, and understand why we desire the things we do and want to have the desires that we have.

I agree.
Now you're speaking about biblical freedom.
The only way we can be truly free is to serve God and not the evil one.
The evil one keeps us entangled in sin and disordered wants and needs and so we aren't truly free.
When we serve God, our minds become clear and we're free to be what a human person should be
and this gives to a person more comfort and satisfaction in their daily life.
Again, I believe you're speaking of philosophical free will.
(so I'm not sure my replies will suit you).

Now if we understand the world and ourselves, we can only do that because of the way we are, and the way the world is. This is only possible through God. But God determines our actions by making us and the world, not via some sort of "supernatural autopilot." God makes us capable of varying degrees of freedom, but we are still created, finite beings, and so in some ways determined. If I think about what causes me to do any one thing, I can imagine a long chain of causes going back to the start of the universe.

What you're speaking about would be second causes.
Everything happens because something happened to cause it.
But this isn't determinism. Determinism, in theology, means that God predestined and decreed everything that will occur - always.

How are "we being created finite beings make us in some ways determined?"

There are a lot of versions of libertarian free will, but they tend to focus on the idea of us being "autonomous." It seems to me like we are only fully autonomous to the extent we are "in God," because only God is not an effect of other causes. We can be relatively more or less self-determining by nature, but only the divine union promised in the Gospels gets us to the perfected case. In this life, it seems we only get rare glimpses of that freedom. Now we see through a mirror darkly, then face to face, in the place where there is no need for a sun or moon, because God's light guides us.

I think you might be repeating what I've stated above about being truly free and how this can only happen if we serve God.

Yes, there is a tension between the idea of voluntarism — the idea that actions must be free to be blame worthy — and determinism. I don't think I've fully worked that out. I find myself returning to Christ's words about judgement on this. We are not called on the judge in this way. I certainly consider arguments for and against universalism, and I believe that in being called on to forgive all we are called on to pray that all repent.

There is one theory I've seen in philosophy that says that we are to blame for actions that occur "according to our true nature." Now if we are free to reject God, to reject God's transformation of our nature, then it does seem like we could be blamed for that nature.

OK. But how can a person be responsible for our unchanged nature IF it's God that decreed before the beginning of time that the person in question will not be changed in nature?

If God determines all, how could any person be responsible for what God decided?
I'd speak to our actions based on our true nature....
but this conversation becomes null and void unless we have libertarian free will -
the option to choose A or B.

I also think we might focus on judgment too much in an individualist sense in our era. The Bible has a strong sense of communal responsibility written into it, and I see a strong argument for covenantal, corporate election. If people do not seek God because of the circumstances of their lives, poverty, a sinful culture, etc. that seems like something we are called on to correct. But of course, it's a hard line to walk, trying to heal societies' ills but not slipping into joyless moralizing legalism. It also seems like part of giving people the freedom to choose good or bad entails a freedom to be punished.

How can we correct whether or not a person desires to serve God?
How can we heal a society?
Moralizing may be joyless, but it holds a society together.
Do we prefer to be joyful and live in chaos? It's not possible - one cancels out the other.
Only a functioning society can allow any joy.

Regarding your last sentence: WHO or WHAT is giving people the freedom to choose?
And if we choose, yes, absolutely we will have to accept the consequences (the freedom to be punished).

 

[brightfame52]

T.K. Brown

Makes sense to me. Barring some sort of miraculous intervention, I don't see how a babe could possibly understand God.

Same for adults, the natural man

 

[Kermos]

Now that it is established that your analogy point of failure was to establish a spiritual condition for your "fit, trim man", but, in contrast, Scripture establishes that Adam was flesh, "flesh of my flesh" (Adam, Genesis 2:23), and of the flesh, the Apostle Paul wrote " "the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so], and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8). as shown in post #288, a response to your post #151 in which you conveyed your spiritually broken analogy, now moving on to your concluding points in post #151.

??? Read 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. Born-again, spiritually-regenerated, "new creatures in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:17) were living carnally, as immature babes in Christ. How, if they were in Christ and "all things had become new" were they living as though they weren't in him and had been "made new"? You seem to be saying above that such a state-of-affairs is impossible. Paul indicates in his various letters very clearly that you're wrong. People who have been fully justified and sanctified in and by Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2, 30), can live in a way completely contrary to who they actually are.

Have you not read how God had me write to you in this very thread that the good deeds of every Christian are caused by God? And that the Word of God declares this good deeds Truth (John 14:6) with “he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God” (John 3:21) - so Lord Jesus had me exclude the deeds of the flesh (carnal), so your "You seem to be saying above that such a state-of-affairs is impossible" is entirely inapplicable - Lord Jesus says "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16) and "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

The Apostle Paul wrote in the same epistle which you brought up, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:1-2), so Paul conveys that there could be unbelievers among the Corinthians - people that believe in a vain thing that is not God. Your writing is incomplete.

The Apostle Paul also wrote "no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me" (Romans 7:17), so Paul distinguishes the chasm between the good deeds and carnal deeds, yet it is good to see more of the passage:

(14) For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. (15) For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. (16) But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. (17) So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. (18) For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. (19) For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. (20) But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

(21) I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. (22) For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, (23) but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (24) Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

(1) Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. (3) For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, (4) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (5) For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. (6) For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, (7) because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, (8) and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
(9) However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (10) If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. (11) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
(Romans 7:14-25, Romans 8:1-11)
​

Again, as in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, the Apostle Paul stipulates the potential for some not to be Christians with
"you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" (Romans 8:9).

Paul explains in this blessed passage that we Christian's flesh deeds are dead, yet our Christian good deeds are caused by as well as owned by the Righteous One, Christ Jesus, Who gives life to our Christian bodies through His Spirit who dwells in us Christians.

We Christian's good deeds are Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), not fruit of man's free-will, but in Truth (John 14:6) wrought in God (John 3:21).

Kermos, you are not making your case, but are just continuing to show that you need some training in reasoning and logic and proper handling of God's word.

In effect, you convey that you believe that I am unreasonable and illogical and founded on shifting sand, yet this series of posts illumines:

1. that Adam was not morally innocent (a.k.a. the "Adam is good" precept of man (Matthew 15:9)) before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in
   post #221, a response to your post #151 in which you preached the "Adam is good" deception,
2. that Adam listened to his wife as being the cause of Adam eating of the tree forbidden as food, not Adam choosing to eat, but truly Adam "listened" was the cause of Adam eating of the tree as shown in post #240, a response to your post #151 in which you preached the unscriptural falsehood that Adam made a choice to eat,
3. that a person who thinks that God is incapable of sovereign control over God's domain is a person has a very small view of God as shown in post #277, a response to your post #151 in which you conveyed that you believe God is not sovereign over all Heaven and Earth and all that is in them,
4. that your analogy point of failure was to establish a spiritual condition for your "fit, trim man", but, in contrast, Scripture establishes that Adam was flesh, "flesh of my flesh" (Adam, Genesis 2:23), and of the flesh, the Apostle Paul wrote " "the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so], and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8) as shown in post #288, a response to your post #151 in which you conveyed your spiritually broken "fit, trim man" and Adam analogy,

By God's grace for God's glory, God uses me, His chosen instrument, to proclaim the unadulterated Word of God.

You add "choose" into Scripture such that you say you control God that God must recompense you with salvation because of your "I chose Jesus"; in contrast, the Apostle Paul declares "the love of Christ controls us" (2 Corinthians 5:14).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[Kermos]

Not willing is a choice to disobey.

What kind of will did Adam have that made him choose to obey the voice as a stranger a creature seen and not that of the voice of the unseen God?. Did he even have a will . Did he hunger?. . Who told him to eat or multiply or ladies first. The spirit of anarchy? the spirit of confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints

A person chooses willingly, whether willing obedience or willing disobedience; in other words, a person's will drives the person's choice, and this fact is crucial to this discourse about Adam's action of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Bearing in mind this crucial fact while we examine your writing, all of these statements are valid:

• A choice to disobey is a willing to disobey.
• A choice to not obey is a choice to disobey (an equivalent of "A choice to disobey is a choice to disobey", essentially, the first bullet item).
• A choice to disobey willingly.
• Willingly is a choice to disobey.
• Not willingly is not a choice to disobey.
• Willing is a choice to disobey.
• Not willing is not a choice to disobey.

Behold that your:

Not willing is a choice to disobey
​

is a woefully invalid statement which disassociates the "will" from the "choice" as demonstrated by the crucial fact:

Willing is a choice to disobey
​

but let's look at where your woeful statement leads.

Adam's "choice to disobey" is "Not willing" according to you and wondering and Corinth77777 (the last two of you by your "Like" of Mr. G Lee's post signifies agreement with his post content thus you assume his post content as your own), so your post's opening sentence breaks the crucial fact established above, so your post's opening thought is confused fiction.

"God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all assembles of the holy ones" (The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:33). You concluded your post with this verse.

The type of will that Adam had is irrelevant because the Apostle Paul dismissed Adam's type of will with regard to Adam's action of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God for we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now
(Romans 8:20-22).
​

See that Adam acted per this Scripture "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6), no mention of "choose" per your quoted thoughts resulting in "and he did choose to eat", but strictly action is recorded for Adam; therefore, you are not in accord with Scripture.

You all have added to the Word of God with your belief that Adam's will "made him choose to obey the voice" which results in "Because you did choose to listen to the voice of your wife, and did choose to eat from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’"; in contrast, the pure Word of God pronounces "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’" (Genesis 3:17) with absolutely no reference to your "choose" by Adam's will.

Returning to Romans 8:20 to examine the Apostle Paul's very specific Greek grammar.

Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope" (Romans 8:20).

Do you see the conjunction "but" splits the Romans 8:20 complex sentence into two clauses?

The first clause is the independent clause capable of standing alone as a sentence, such that "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly",

Did you know that Paul's use of Greek grammar specifically associates the Greek inflective noun "creation" with the the Greek inflective word "willingly"? Both "willingly" (Strong's 1635 - ἑκοῦσα - willingly) and "creation" (Strong's 2937 - κτίσις - creation) are Nominative/Feminine/Singular, so herein lies the absolute binding of "willingly" with "creation", not God bound to "not willingly" as per free-will camp person's word of "God did not will it" regarding Romans 8:20, but in Truth (John 14:6) "the creation" is concretely adhered to "not willingly" by Paul's language.

The result is that we find that Paul modifies the verb phrase "was subjected" with the adverbial phrase "not willingly", so the full verb phrase is "was not willingly subjected".

The sentence subject of "the creation" performed the action (verb) of the sentence "was not willingly subjected" then comes the sentence prepositional phrase containing the direct object "to futility" associated with the sentence subject object.

We know the sentence subject of "the creation" (Romans 8:20) refers to man, including Adam, because in the next verse "that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21).

So, "the creation" in Romans 8:20 refers to the same "the creation" in Romans 8:21; therefore, since man exclusively becomes the "children of God" (Romans 8:21) (beasts and birds do not become children of God), then "the creation" in Romans 8:20 includes Adam and his wife.

Now, it is permissible to perform word substitution with Paul's writing in Romans 8:20, such that:

• "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20).
• "Adam was not willingly subjected to futility" (English translation of Romans 8:20).

If Adam chose "out of his own free will" (actual free-will camp person's word) to eat of the tree forbidden as food, then the result is "Adam was willingly subjected to futility" which contradicts Paul's writing.

The Apostle Paul eliminates Adam's will in relation to Adam eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; therefore, Adam did not use a purported free-will to eat of that tree.

Adam is not a proof of man having a free-will to choose toward God, after all, Adam, the man of flesh, disobeyed God by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - that disobedience of Adam was Adam moving away from God.
​

Unlike your thoughts of including Adam's will to "choose", the Apostle Paul excluded Adam's will to "choose" before your thoughts existed by his writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[Kermos]

hawkman gordon777 Runningman Johann!@# JLB wondering
Walpole Carry_Your_Name Tenchi Corinth77777 eframe Hidden In Him

The Word of God pronounced something very interesting to Adam, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife" (Genesis 3:17) as evidentiary motivation of Adam for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In advance of this pronouncement, we find Adam "with her" (Genesis 3:6), Adam's wife, when she uttered her only recorded words in the Bible prior to eating of the tree forbidden as food. She added "or touch it" (Genesis 3:3) to the Word of God "Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die" (Genesis 2:16-17, YLT).

So, Adam listened to hia wife's saying to the serpent "God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’" (Genesis 3:3).

And, Adam was right there when she touched the tree, yet he did not see her die right there on the spot (Genesis 3:6).

Additionally, Adam was right there after she touched the tree when she proceeded to eat of the tree, yet he did not see her die, drop dead, there on the spot (Genesis 3:6).

Adam was with the Woman when she said "you will die" (Genesis 3:3) at the time that she subtracted "in the day" (Genesis 2:16-17) from the Word of God.

Instead of reciting the Word of God, the Woman adulterated the Word of God such that her word (recorded in Genesis 3:2-3) appeared to fail to come to pass with Adam witnessing her disobedience of God’s command, then, after witnessing her action of eating, it is written of Adam "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6).

In the creation account, God reveals that Eve's adulteration resulted in deadly consequences, yet her word appears to be innocuous to so very many people.

In a manner similar to Adam's wife, Free-will Philosophers adulterate the Word of God, even in the creation account - in the image and likeness of Eve.

For example, free-will adherents convey that Adam "chose" to listen to his wife, so, in effect, free-will philosophers preach "Because you chose to listen to the voice of your wife", despite the Truth (John 14:6) that the Hebrew word בָּחר (Strong's 977 - bachar - choose and it's conjugates) is absent from the entirety of the creation account throughout Genesis chapters 1-5.

No free-will, no "choose" in Genesis 2:16-17.

No free-will "choose" in Genesis 3:3.

No free-will in Genesis 3:6.

No "chose" in Genesis 3:17.

No Scripture states man was imparted free-will.

The consequence for free-will philosophers adding "choose" to the Word of God are the same as Adam with Eve.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

hawkman gordon777 Runningman Johann!@# JLB wondering
Walpole Carry_Your_Name Tenchi Corinth77777 eframe Hidden In Him

The Word of God pronounced something very interesting to Adam, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife" (Genesis 3:17) as evidentiary motivation of Adam for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In advance of this pronouncement, we find Adam "with her" (Genesis 3:6), Adam's wife, when she uttered her only recorded words in the Bible prior to eating of the tree forbidden as food. She added "or touch it" (Genesis 3:3) to the Word of God "Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die" (Genesis 2:16-17, YLT).

So, Adam listened to hia wife's saying to the serpent "God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’" (Genesis 3:3).

And, Adam was right there when she touched the tree, yet he did not see her die right there on the spot (Genesis 3:6).

Additionally, Adam was right there after she touched the tree when she proceeded to eat of the tree, yet he did not see her die, drop dead, there on the spot (Genesis 3:6).

Adam was with the Woman when she said "you will die" (Genesis 3:3) at the time that she subtracted "in the day" (Genesis 2:16-17) from the Word of God.

Instead of reciting the Word of God, the Woman adulterated the Word of God such that her word (recorded in Genesis 3:2-3) appeared to fail to come to pass with Adam witnessing her disobedience of God’s command, then, after witnessing her action of eating, it is written of Adam "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6).

In the creation account, God reveals that Eve's adulteration resulted in deadly consequences, yet her word appears to be innocuous to so very many people.

In a manner similar to Adam's wife, Free-will Philosophers adulterate the Word of God, even in the creation account - in the image and likeness of Eve.

For example, free-will adherents convey that Adam "chose" to listen to his wife, so, in effect, free-will philosophers preach "Because you chose to listen to the voice of your wife", despite the Truth (John 14:6) that the Hebrew word בָּחר (Strong's 977 - bachar - choose and it's conjugates) is absent from the entirety of the creation account throughout Genesis chapters 1-5.

No free-will, no "choose" in Genesis 2:16-17.

No free-will "choose" in Genesis 3:3.

No free-will in Genesis 3:6.

No "chose" in Genesis 3:17.

No Scripture states man was imparted free-will.

The consequence for free-will philosophers adding "choose" to the Word of God are the same as Adam with Eve.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

Yes Eve the first false prophet, false apostle sent with the will of the father of lies. Adam the first to believe false prophecy .

 

[Tenchi]

Have you not read how God had me write to you in this very thread that the good deeds of every Christian are caused by God?

And the good deeds of non-Christians?

Romans 2:14-15
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Here, Paul indicated that unsaved Gentiles had the law of God "written on their hearts" and "by nature do what the law requires." Is God, then, causing their obedience to His law, as He does for His own children? Or can "good deeds," actions that conform to God's law, be performed by non-believers simply because they have a God-given conscience directing them? It seems so. But this means not all good deeds are, or have to be, directly enabled by God; a non-believer's conscience can act upon him all alone, spurring him to do good.

Such "obedience" by the non-believer to the "law of God written on the heart" is not spiritually useful, however, though it is morally good. These good deeds don't arise from a motive of love for God and so are refused by Him (Matthew 22:36-38; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3). Thus, they are useless spiritually, though the deeds are moral and have a positive effect on others.

And that the Word of God declares this good deeds Truth (John 14:6) with “he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God” (John 3:21) - so Lord Jesus had me exclude the deeds of the flesh (carnal), so your "You seem to be saying above that such a state-of-affairs is impossible" is entirely inapplicable - Lord Jesus says "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16) and "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

As Creator and Sustainer of Everything, Jesus is the Ultimate Source of All (John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:15-17; Acts 17:27-28). This necessarily includes the non-believer, whom he has made, as well as the believer. When, then, Jesus says "without me you can do nothing" to his disciples, he is making a statement that is true of all people, saved and not. Without Jesus the Creator, no one would exist, let alone do anything; so, Jesus can say to anyone, born-again or not, "Without me, you can do nothing."

Every person, then, saved or unsaved, is enabled ultimately to do all that they do, including acting in a moral way, doing good to others without the direct control and enabling of the Holy Spirit, or from a motive of love for God, by Christ, the Creator and Sustainer of All. Jesus is the only means, ultimately, by which anything is done. Black holes swallowing up entire galaxies, a thunderstorm sweeping across the plains of Idaho, elephants walking the Serengeti, the drug dealer selling illicit chemicals to people, and the pastor preaching the Gospel are all enabled both to exist and function by Christ, the Creator. In any case, the key differences between "deeds that have been wrought in God" and the merely moral actions taken by unbelievers is that, in the case of the latter, love for God and control of the Holy Spirit are spurring and ordering the good deeds that are done. (Matthew 22:36-38; Romans 5:5; Galatians 5:22-23; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Romans 6:13-22; 1 Peter 5:6; James 4:7, etc.)

So, then, good deeds are not necessarily proof-positive that a person is saved and the absence of good deeds is not necessarily proof-positive of not being saved. Both saved and unsaved people do good deeds, and both saved and unsaved could not do so except for Christ, who has created them and is sustaining their existence at every moment. And so it is that Paul wrote to Christians who were "carnal babes in Christ," who were "fleshly," deceived into legalism, and "sinning that grace might abound" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3; Galatians 3:1-3; Romans 6:1-3). Though they were genuinely saved, these Christians did not act out of love for God but out of love for themselves, behaving in ways that were not ordered and controlled by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle Paul wrote in the same epistle which you brought up, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:1-2), so Paul conveys that there could be unbelievers among the Corinthians - people that believe in a vain thing that is not God. Your writing is incomplete.

I've never indicated that there were no false brethren in the Early Church. Paul wrote repeatedly that there were. But he also says of those whom he confirmed again and again were truly born-again children of God that they were fleshly, legalistic and sinning that grace may abound.

1 Corinthians 3 is a great example of what I'm talking about. Paul starts the chapter calling the Corinthian believers "carnal babes in Christ" who could only endure spiritual "milk" rather than "solid food." They were fractious, and partisan, and jealous of one another (vs. 3-4). But Paul goes on to say that these same carnal Christians (whom he had called "brethren" - vs. 1) were God's "field and buildings" (vs. 9), "temples" of God (vs. 16), and "belonged to Christ" (vs. 23). The presence of sin in the life of a believer, then, is not proof that they are not saved, or have lost their salvation.

So, no, my writing is not "incomplete"; your understanding of God's word is.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

In effect, you convey that you believe that I am unreasonable and illogical and founded on shifting sand, yet this series of posts illumines:

1. that Adam was not morally innocent (a.k.a. the "Adam is good" precept of man (Matthew 15:9)) before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in
   post #221, a response to your post #151 in which you preached the "Adam is good" deception,
2. that Adam listened to his wife as being the cause of Adam eating of the tree forbidden as food, not Adam choosing to eat, but truly Adam "listened" was the cause of Adam eating of the tree as shown in post #240, a response to your post #151 in which you preached the unscriptural falsehood that Adam made a choice to eat,
3. that a person who thinks that God is incapable of sovereign control over God's domain is a person has a very small view of God as shown in post #277, a response to your post #151 in which you conveyed that you believe God is not sovereign over all Heaven and Earth and all that is in them,
4. that your analogy point of failure was to establish a spiritual condition for your "fit, trim man", but, in contrast, Scripture establishes that Adam was flesh, "flesh of my flesh" (Adam, Genesis 2:23), and of the flesh, the Apostle Paul wrote " "the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so], and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8) as shown in post #288, a response to your post #151 in which you conveyed your spiritually broken "fit, trim man" and Adam analogy,

By God's grace for God's glory, God uses me, His chosen instrument, to proclaim the unadulterated Word of God.

But this thread has not shown what you conclude in the quotation above. Instead, you've been shown to do just the opposite of what you've concluded.

1.) Adam was, in fact, morally innocent before the Fall. This is clearly implied when the Genesis account says,

Genesis 3:6-7
6 ...she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked...

To what were their "eyes opened"? To the fact of the moral import of their nakedness. Among other things, this means that, prior to eating the Forbidden Fruit, both Adam and Eve had no sense that their naked condition had any moral quality. In other words, they were morally-innocent, unaware of the moral nature of anything. And so, before God and each other, they walked about Eden in the nude without qualm.

2.) A straightforward, natural reading of the Genesis account of the Fall clearly reveals that Adam chose to eat of the Forbidden Fruit. Nothing in the account suggests Adam was compelled to eat the Fruit. Eve didn't hold him down and stuff the Fruit into his mouth. She may have encouraged Adam to do wrong, but ultimately he made a choice to act in rebellion to his Maker's command.

And even if you want to say that Adam was compelled to sin by "listening" to his wife, was his choice to listen to her also not really a choice? Was he forced to "listen" to Eve, too? Where is this indicated in the account of the Fall? Nowhere. And there is nowhere else in God's word that indicates this, either.

3.) I've never indicated that God is not sovereign over all. This is your Strawman contortion of my view. In fact, I do believe God is sovereign over all. But this doesn't necessitate His meticulous ordination of every single event occurring in the universe. It is God's sovereign decree that Man should have free agency and that, despite this agency, God is still able to carry out His will just as He wishes. This is a far higher view of God than to think He must control every little thing in order to see His will is accomplished.

As I asked in an earlier post, is it more impressive for a man to win a chess match when he has dictated all the moves that are made in it than to have won the match against an opponent whose moves he did not dictate? Obviously, the latter win is far more impressive. A man who can win a chess match only by controlling his opponent's moves is not at all impressive, but, rather, appears incredibly weak. So, too, a God who can only see His will done if He orders every move all of us make. A better, higher and more biblical view of God recognizes that God doesn't have to ordain everything we do in order to see His will done as He wants it done. This sort of sovereignty is far superior to the weak sovereignty of the God of Calvinist doctrine.

4.) Adam was of flesh and blood, obviously. But until he sinned, he was not "fleshly" in the way Paul meant in his letter to the believers at Rome. You are not taking into account the effects of the Fall that did not exist prior to Adam and Eve's rebellion toward their Maker. Though made of flesh and blood, neither Adam nor Eve labored under the power of the flesh in the way that everyone did after the Fall. Your equating Adam being of flesh to Paul's description of being "fleshly" (in contrast to being "spiritual"), then, is highly specious, conflating meaning because of similarity of terms. "Of flesh" refers to a physical state; "fleshly" refers to a moral/spiritual state.

It is not at all apparent to me, therefore, that you have been an "instrument of God" used of Him to proclaim His truth unadulterated. Instead, as I said, you have done exactly the opposite, twisting and obscuring His truth quite badly.

 

[T.K. Brown]

T.K. Brown

Same for adults, the natural man

This is where I would disagree. To be sure, creation itself is a miracle, a theophany — a manifestation of the divine will. So in the sense that we need to exist to believe in God, of course it requires a miracle for us to believe.

But I see nothing in the Biblical text that suggests that "signs and wonders" are required to have faith. Indeed, Christ says that we are better off if our faith is not the result of miraculous signs and wonders (John 4)

Nor do I find the evidence for the theory that the Holy Spirit must miraculously cause all faith particularly strong. When Jesus works signs and wonders, people believe. The Bible makes no mention of the Spirit working on the people's faith in these instances, and so it does seem that seeing signs was enough to inspire faith. That is, we can see a demonstration of the divine and believe, and such signs are everywhere for those with eyes to see them (Romans 1).

Moreover, many had faith and were considered "righteous" by God before Christ's incarnation (Noah, Job, and Elijah are mentioned as such by name in Ezekiel). Yet Christ says that the gift of the Spirit cannot come until after he leaves (John 16:7). To be sure, God's Spirit does seem at work in the world prior to this (e.g. "rushing upon Gideon") but Christ seems to suggest that the type of indwelling union mentioned in the Epistles is only made possible by the mystery of the Incarnation and Resurrection. This being the case, it seems that the faithful of the Old Testament, Moses, Abraham, etc. had faith because of who they were and how they chose to respond to God, not because of a miracle that goes unmentioned throughout the Bible.

Indeed, if a miracle was required for faith, we should wonder why the OT keeps this such a secret and does not speak of the Spirit coming upon people (or conversely, God hardening people) except in a few situations.

The above sounds dangerously close to determinism and I don't believe God determines our every movement.
God made the world with humans in it and He gave to humans one of His attributes: Freedom of choice.
However, I agree with everything else you've said.

Well, the core idea of compatibilism is that free will is "compatible with" "what comes before dictates what comes after." I see some sort of determinism as essential to free will. We are free to the extent we are "self-determining."

It can't be that our actions aren't determined by "what comes before." A free action is determined by our beliefs, preferences, knowledge, etc., all of which must exist before our choosing. If free will is "not determined by anything that comes before a choice is made," then it would seem to be the case that "who we are and what we believe," couldn't determine our choices.

I would say that God grants us freedom but that God also determines our actions in some ways. A cause determines its effects. God is the cause of all created things. In this way, God is the primary, first cause of everything. And yet, God also made a world where we can become self-determining, where we can be the cause of our own actions, and it is in this that we are free.

"Biblical free will," I would take to be the premise that we can't be fully self determining without the sort of union with God promised in John 14. Without God, we are Paul in Romans 7, divided against ourselves and unable to pursue the highest good.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

Here, Paul indicated that unsaved Gentiles had the law of God "written on their hearts" and "by nature do what the law requires." Is God, then, causing their obedience to His law, as He does for His own children? Or can "good deeds," actions that conform to God's law, be performed by non-believers simply because they have a God-given conscience directing them? It seems so. But this means not all good deeds are, or have to be, directly enabled by God; a non-believer's conscience can act upon him all alone, spurring him to do good.

The law of God is greater than our conscience. He know all things.

God works accompany salvation .God promised he will not forget the good works we can offer toward the power of His name .

Those who do not know Christ they can offer it towards thier own conscience it just will not have the results as it would be if empowered by God .Their works will be forgotten indicating they never knew God

Hebrews 6:9-10 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister

If no works according to his power that works in us He will profess "I never knew you"

Mathew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[Tenchi]

The law of God is greater than our conscience. He know all things.

Just to be clear: I referred to "the law of God written in the hearts" of the unsaved person. Is this law the whole of God's law revealed in His word? No, of course not. An unsaved person's conscience can't possibly contain all of God's law. But their conscience does provide to them a basic moral sense that is in accord with God's law.

God works accompany salvation .God promised he will not forget the good works we can offer toward the power of His name .

Yes, good works do accompany salvation. Is this to say that they don't accompany those who aren't saved, though Paul said that they did in Romans 3? As he pointed out, the lost can perform good deeds, obeying the "law of God written on their hearts."

Those who do not know Christ they can offer it towards thier own conscience it just will not have the results as it would be if empowered by God .Their works will be forgotten indicating they never knew God

This was sort of what I was explaining about the spiritual uselessness of good works done by an unsaved person. Since such works don't arise from love for God and aren't done under the control of the Holy Spirit, they aren't accepted by God.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

Just to be clear: I referred to "the law of God written in the hearts" of the unsaved person. Is this law the whole of God's law revealed in His word? No, of course not. An unsaved person's conscience can't possibly contain all of God's law. But their conscience does provide to them a basic moral sense that is in accord with God's law.

Thanks I would agree.

Yes, good works do accompany salvation. Is this to say that they don't accompany those who aren't saved, though Paul said that they did in Romans 3? As he pointed out, the lost can perform good deeds, obeying the "law of God written on their hearts."

If they do not attribute the good works in the name or power of God. They can do good works till the end of time like the many in Matthew 7. Where he said I never knew you worker of iniquity. No power that comes from knowing God .

Hebrew 6:9-10 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name,(power) in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

They claimed according to His name but were proved to be liars

Mathew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

Humbling us to make sure our calming and election is of our Holy Father in heaven

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

 

[wondering]

Well, the core idea of compatibilism is that free will is "compatible with" "what comes before dictates what comes after." I see some sort of determinism as essential to free will. We are free to the extent we are "self-determining."

The problem with believers such as brightfame52 is that he does not believe in any self-determinism. I say this only because I hope that you understand that you're in a thread about the reformed faith/Calvinism.

I, on the other hand, believe I have total free will, and, again, free will as stated biblically - the ability to follow my conscience between two moral choices - made freely by me with no outside coercion.

If God, OTOH, predestines everything or decrees everything, man is left with no free will and no ability to choose; he has no option other than what God wills him to choose/do.

It can't be that our actions aren't determined by "what comes before." A free action is determined by our beliefs, preferences, knowledge, etc., all of which must exist before our choosing. If free will is "not determined by anything that comes before a choice is made," then it would seem to be the case that "who we are and what we believe," couldn't determine our choices.

I agree but could you explain what "what comes before" means?
Thanks.

(I agree that our moral choices - or any choice - is made by our beliefs, preferences, knowledge, experiences, etc.)

I would say that God grants us freedom but that God also determines our actions in some ways. A cause determines its effects. God is the cause of all created things. In this way, God is the primary, first cause of everything. And yet, God also made a world where we can become self-determining, where we can be the cause of our own actions, and it is in this that we are free.

God is the first cause.
I'd say that second causes will have a determining factor in our choosing.

Everything that happens will cause other events and all this will have an affect on all our choices.

"Biblical free will," I would take to be the premise that we can't be fully self determining without the sort of union with God promised in John 14. Without God, we are Paul in Romans 7, divided against ourselves and unable to pursue the highest good.

Biblical free will only means that we are free to make a moral choice.

But, yes, we are truly free only if we submit ourselves to God.
John 8:36
If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
To pursue the highest good, as you've stated.
Persons that do not pursue the highest good are not free, but under bondage to satan and that is real.

 

[Tenchi]

If they do not attribute the good works in the name or power of God.

I think there's much more to doing good deeds that God accepts than this.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; Depart from me you practice lawlessness.'

Here are people claiming the name of the Lord (Jesus Christ) who are rejected by him as "lawless" (not doing the will of the Father). Why were they rejected? They were doing good things, good deeds that seemed to honor God. Well, where does the "will of the Father" begin?

Matthew 22:36-38
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
38 "This is the great and foremost commandment.

Did those in Christ's story say anything about the First and Great Commandment? Nope. Not a word. Strange, if they were trying to make a case for going to heaven on the basis of their obedience to God's commands. They did all sorts of good things but not the one thing God has commanded before and above all: Love Him with all we are.

The apostle Paul makes a similar point about love and obedience to God in the following:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

No matter what I say, or know, or do - even if it's to give away everything I own to the poor, or die a martyr for the faith - if love for God isn't my primary and fundamental motive, it's all useless.

 

[brightfame52]

This is where I would disagree. To be sure, creation itself is a miracle, a theophany — a manifestation of the divine will. So in the sense that we need to exist to believe in God, of course it requires a miracle for us to believe.

But I see nothing in the Biblical text that suggests that "signs and wonders" are required to have faith. Indeed, Christ says that we are better off if our faith is not the result of miraculous signs and wonders (John 4)

Nor do I find the evidence for the theory that the Holy Spirit must miraculously cause all faith particularly strong. When Jesus works signs and wonders, people believe. The Bible makes no mention of the Spirit working on the people's faith in these instances, and so it does seem that seeing signs was enough to inspire faith. That is, we can see a demonstration of the divine and believe, and such signs are everywhere for those with eyes to see them (Romans 1).

Moreover, many had faith and were considered "righteous" by God before Christ's incarnation (Noah, Job, and Elijah are mentioned as such by name in Ezekiel). Yet Christ says that the gift of the Spirit cannot come until after he leaves (John 16:7). To be sure, God's Spirit does seem at work in the world prior to this (e.g. "rushing upon Gideon") but Christ seems to suggest that the type of indwelling union mentioned in the Epistles is only made possible by the mystery of the Incarnation and Resurrection. This being the case, it seems that the faithful of the Old Testament, Moses, Abraham, etc. had faith because of who they were and how they chose to respond to God, not because of a miracle that goes unmentioned throughout the Bible.

Indeed, if a miracle was required for faith, we should wonder why the OT keeps this such a secret and does not speak of the Spirit coming upon people (or conversely, God hardening people) except in a few situations.



Well, the core idea of compatibilism is that free will is "compatible with" "what comes before dictates what comes after." I see some sort of determinism as essential to free will. We are free to the extent we are "self-determining."

It can't be that our actions aren't determined by "what comes before." A free action is determined by our beliefs, preferences, knowledge, etc., all of which must exist before our choosing. If free will is "not determined by anything that comes before a choice is made," then it would seem to be the case that "who we are and what we believe," couldn't determine our choices.

I would say that God grants us freedom but that God also determines our actions in some ways. A cause determines its effects. God is the cause of all created things. In this way, God is the primary, first cause of everything. And yet, God also made a world where we can become self-determining, where we can be the cause of our own actions, and it is in this that we are free.

"Biblical free will," I would take to be the premise that we can't be fully self determining without the sort of union with God promised in John 14. Without God, we are Paul in Romans 7, divided against ourselves and unable to pursue the highest good.

Man naturally cannot Spiritually understand the things of the Spirit of God, no matter if they are infants or full grown mature wise adults. 1 Cor 2:14

 

[Corinth77777]

to "not willingly" by Paul's language.

​

The result is that we find that Paul modifies the verb phrase​

​

If Adam chose "out of his own free will" (actual free-will camp person's word) to eat of the tree forbidden as food, then the result is "Adam was willingly subjected to futility" which contradicts Paul's writing.​

​

The Apostle Paul eliminates Adam's will in relation to Adam eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; therefore, Adam did not use a purported free-will to eat of that tree.​

​

Adam is not a proof of man having a free-will to choose toward God, after all, Adam, the man of flesh, disobeyed God by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - that disobedience of Adam was Adam moving away from God.​

​

Unlike your thoughts of including Adam's will to "choose", the Apostle Paul excluded Adam's will to "choose" before your thoughts existed by his writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

When I say Free will that means man has a choice
Free Choice- that means in this particular case that choosing who we will serve is not forced upon us.

Adam had free will in that He could choose rather to eat the apple or not eat the apple.
No one forced His hand.

 

[T.K. Brown]

Man naturally cannot Spiritually understand the things of the Spirit of God, no matter if they are infants or full grown mature wise adults. 1 Cor 2:14

I don't see how that Scripture supports anything like "people only believe in God through direct miracles." And like I said, this seems contradicted by the fact that there are people faithful to God throughout the OT and Gospels and the Bible never mentions the Spirit motivating their faith. Further, Christ says the Spirit cannot come unless he departs. And yet clearly the Disciples do not have the Spirit when Jesus says this to them, and yet believe.

 

[T.K. Brown]

If God, OTOH, predestines everything or decrees everything, man is left with no free will and no ability to choose; he has no option other than what God wills him to choose/do.

I guess this depends on what we mean by "God determines our actions." If God's knowledge is perfect, than God knows what we shall do before we do it? Or does he?

I don't know if this sort of thinking is appropriate for God. Does before and after apply to God, or only created beings? If God has perfect memory, and perfect foreknowledge, then every moment is present to God at once. Indeed, Boethius claims this has to be the case because an eternal being, whose entire being is present to it at once instead of spread out in time, is "more perfect" than one existing through time. A lot of theologians have followed this line of thought.

This means that God is fully present to every moment, transcending time, a true eternal without beginning or end. It's the same as how a triangle is always a triangle without reference to time.

Saint Augustine used the analogy of our memory to show how this doesn't take away our freedom. Think of any choice you made in the past. You know what choice you made. You cannot change it, only remember it. Does this make the choice not free? No, it is simply that we only choose in the present moment. Yet God's knowledge is equally present to all different present moments.

I seem to have almost perfect foreknowledge of what my cat will do if I open a can of food for them, or what my son will pick if I offer him pizza versus broccoli, but it doesn't mean I am chosing for them, I just understand their preferences.

I agree but could you explain what "what comes before" means?
Thanks.

(I agree that our moral choices - or any choice - is made by our beliefs, preferences, knowledge, experiences, etc.)

Just the idea that causes come before effects. So, causes are "what comes before."

And this is why I think freedom and determinism must be compatible. For my choices to be "mine" they have to be based on my beliefs, knowledge, etc. But these pre-exist my choices, and are factors that "determine" my choices.

Now, I help to determine my beliefs, rational thinking, and even my past experiences (through other choices). But they also get determined by the rest of the world, God's laws of nature, my parents, my friends, society, etc. Thus, my freedom is relative.

It's always seemed to me that the biggest threat to our freedom is internal division. We end up like Paul in Romans 7, a slave to disordered desires. This is where God is key in enhancing our freedom. It's this lack of freedom that causes Saint Augustine to say that: "Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices."

God is the first cause.
I'd say that second causes will have a determining factor in our choosing.

Everything that happens will cause other events and all this will have an affect on all our choices.

Absolutely. And some of those causes will be related to our own will. Some will be manifestations of other's will. This is where I think the idea of a "body of Christ," and a more corporate, instead of individualist view of election makes more sense. We empower each other in freedom and love through our role as secondary choices.

I think the focus on very individualist models of election is actually what bothers me most in some versions of Reformed theology I've read. The Arminianism vs Unconditional Election debate makes it all about us, the individual. Yet Paul's analogy to explain this to us is branches being grafted onto a vine. It is the vine that matters, not us at leaves. Likewise, in Romans 8, what is foreknown? The Incarnation and the pouring out of the Spirit on those who come to Christ. What is predestined? The salvation of those in the Body of Christ? Who is sanctified and glorified? The Body and Bride of Christ.

The prior example of "election," what the world for election means most often in the NT and Septuagint, is Israel, a corporate people, not a connection of individuals.

Biblical free will only means that we are free to make a moral choice.

That makes sense to me

 

[wondering]

I guess this depends on what we mean by "God determines our actions." If God's knowledge is perfect, than God knows what we shall do before we do it? Or does he?

Yes. God knows everything.

I don't know if this sort of thinking is appropriate for God. Does before and after apply to God, or only created beings? If God has perfect memory, and perfect foreknowledge, then every moment is present to God at once. Indeed, Boethius claims this has to be the case because an eternal being, whose entire being is present to it at once instead of spread out in time, is "more perfect" than one existing through time. A lot of theologians have followed this line of thought.

It's the correct line of thought.
God made time... so He cannot be part of time.
If I make a product, I'm not part of that product.

This means that God is fully present to every moment, transcending time, a true eternal without beginning or end. It's the same as how a triangle is always a triangle without reference to time.

Agreed.

Saint Augustine used the analogy of our memory to show how this doesn't take away our freedom. Think of any choice you made in the past. You know what choice you made. You cannot change it, only remember it. Does this make the choice not free? No, it is simply that we only choose in the present moment. Yet God's knowledge is equally present to all different present moments.

Agreed.
And no, there is no before or after God because God always was.

As to Augustine, I must disagree.
Augustine believed in predestination.
Albeit it wasn't double predestination -
But he's the reason we have the reformed/calvinists today.
I know how intelligent he was, but he's not one of my favorite ECFs.

But I agree, because we know an outcome our free choice is not taken away.

I seem to have almost perfect foreknowledge of what my cat will do if I open a can of food for them, or what my son will pick if I offer him pizza versus broccoli, but it doesn't mean I am chosing for them, I just understand their preferences.

Amen to that!

Just the idea that causes come before effects. So, causes are "what comes before."

OK.
Causes come before effects so they are what comes before. Fine.

And this is why I think freedom and determinism must be compatible. For my choices to be "mine" they have to be based on my beliefs, knowledge, etc. But these pre-exist my choices, and are factors that "determine" my choices.

OK, but to a reformed person (and we are on a reformed thread) determinism means that God made all choices for you.
(I'm not reformed - I believe you know this by now).

Now, I help to determine my beliefs, rational thinking, and even my past experiences (through other choices). But they also get determined by the rest of the world, God's laws of nature, my parents, my friends, society, etc. Thus, my freedom is relative.

I like to say that outside events can affect your choices,,,
but I can't say your choices are determined because this would mean that God predestinated your choices.
Please remember that we're talking about theology here, not philosophy.

It's always seemed to me that the biggest threat to our freedom is internal division. We end up like Paul in Romans 7, a slave to disordered desires. This is where God is key in enhancing our freedom. It's this lack of freedom that causes Saint Augustine to say that: "Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices."

Yes, I've touched on this - nice words by Augustine. (he wasn't all bad).

Absolutely. And some of those causes will be related to our own will. Some will be manifestations of other's will. This is where I think the idea of a "body of Christ," and a more corporate, instead of individualist view of election makes more sense. We empower each other in freedom and love through our role as secondary choices.

The CC will agree with you.
I tend to believe that election is individual - it has to be.
The NT was written for individuals.
Only chapters 9 to 11 of Romans was written for the corporate Israel.

I think the focus on very individualist models of election is actually what bothers me most in some versions of Reformed theology I've read. The Arminianism vs Unconditional Election debate makes it all about us, the individual. Yet Paul's analogy to explain this to us is branches being grafted onto a vine. It is the vine that matters, not us at leaves. Likewise, in Romans 8, what is foreknown? The Incarnation and the pouring out of the Spirit on those who come to Christ. What is predestined? The salvation of those in the Body of Christ? Who is sanctified and glorified? The Body and Bride of Christ.

OK about the branches.
But I see more in the individual status.
WHOSOEVER,
THE FREE GIFT OF GOD (could it be meant for the masses?)
BELIEVE IN JESUS AND YOU WILL BE SAVED
EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD....
ETC.

Why do you believe it's not an individualistic model?
The CC used to teach that the church saved us.
It has come around to preaching our Lord.

The prior example of "election," what the world for election means most often in the NT and Septuagint, is Israel, a corporate people, not a connection of individuals.

I agree.
Election refers to God choosing Israel for His salvation and revelation plan.

But I also like to say that if one becomes an elect, chosen, it will always be conditional.