Origins of Evil and Will of Man

James,
I'm coming back to this. I asked the question about Adam for a reason. Scripture says that we sin when we are drawn away of our own lusts. We also know that we sin when we are tempted. Christ was tempted, and the desires by which he was tempted were not ungodly desires, but rather the means were unauthorized. How is this any different? You are describing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil so that the only manner in which it could appeal to Adam was in that it afforded to Adam the ability to sin. I do not see this.

So this is why I want to come back to Adam. You say in post 65 that to sin, Adam had to desire to do evil, but based on how I understand you to mean this, this would also mean that when Christ was tempted, for him to be truly tempted, he would have had to desire to do evil and then to resist that. Where did this desire arise within Christ. You say that using Satan as the catalyst is just a temporary foil, because it pushes things up the ladder one rung, but you are presuming that righteous knowledge and the environment cannot interact within a man to cause him to desire something. So, I'm still not sure you've provided any proof that what was working in Adam was a desire to sin (in the sense that you are using the terms). Can you clarify that?

Thanks,
Charles

Ed, this is what I posted once before:

I did give the reference. Do you need a page number too? I see I forgot that.

Calvin was talking about libertarian freedom. However, he was talking about how foolish it is to think that evil could come to pass merely by permission. He calls God the author of evils who willed them to be. So I stand by what I said. He was either confused or changed his mind.

Ed, if you can seriously conclude that I am arguing for liberal or arminian theology, then you are simply not paying attention or don't understand. I have engaged Calvin, RC Sproul Sr and Jr, and Tom Schreiner.

1. Calvin calls your view foolish.

2. RC Sproul SR says he has never known anyone to explain this.

3. RC Sproul JR says God is the "culprit."

4. Tom Schreiner says that there are logical problems in this system.

Those are 4 calvinists who either admit failure or make aggressive statements on this. You can't simply write them off as liberal or arminian.

I will defer to you in speculative theory since I don't base theology in it. The scriptures refer to God's eternal purpose, but nothing about an order of decrees. That is speculative theology that logically works backward where God has not taken us. The even sanctified but fallen mind of man who delves into the unknown will not produce revelation from God. This is so crucial to so many theologians, but I am amazed how quickly they abandon sola scriptura for it.

Charles, for Adam to have sinned, he had to have desired to sin. If I made it seem like a valid temptation requires a chance to fall, then I mistyped something.

Christ was indeed tempted, but had no capacity to sin, ever.

James,
No, not a chance to fall, but an additional step.

Christ
1. Man is tempted by desire
2. Man rejects desire
3. Man does not sin

Adam
1. Man is tempted by desire
2. Man gives in to desire.
3. Man sins.

What you are saying:

Adam
1. Man is tempted by desire
2. Man also desires specifically to sin
3. Man gives in to desire to sin
4. Man sins.

I don't see this. Because I am fallen, there are times where the lust that I am drawn away with is simply to rebel. Where I am willing to not get something I desire simply out a desire to rebel. Jesus Christ could not even be tempted with this at all, because he never desired this. I do not have a reason to believe that Adam could be tempted with this desire either.

Am I missing something?

First, Calvin does not call compatibilism foolish because of the different nuances bound up in the word "permit." What Calvin references is the attempt to preserve libertarain freedom with sovereignty in the very manner in which you are attempting. When the Calvinst says "permit" and the Arminian says "permit," we are not saying the same thing. Second, Calvin is speaking of Liberarian freedom and the word permit in that context is very much different from reformed language. Finally, since Calvin is dealing with libertarian nonsense, he does not think my view serious. I have two different versions of the Institutes and his commentaries. I know what he says as a whole. There is no doubt he would be classified as a modern day compatibilist. I quoted Paul Helm in a previous post. He is probably at the top of the list for reformed Christian philosophers and theologians. He has written much on Calvin and knows him very well. You just keep saying the same thing over and over. From what I see, you have not offered up on defense of sovereignty as you define it. I believe this is because you cannot do so. Yet, it has been demonstrated in multifarious ways how God's sovereignty does not violate James 1:13 in any way. Either God determined his plan or someone else did or perhaps these is no plan. God has determined all that is, ever has been, and ever will be. He alone is sovereign. There can be only one.

No, I am not saying this.

Then please explain how you can justify your statements in #63 that it is necessary for God to put the desire to sin in Adam. The difference in temptation between Adam and Christ is that Adam was not able to resist giving into what he desired and Christ was, not that Adam had a desire to sin in him and Christ didn't (that is however a difference between Christ and me).

Charles, I was explaining the logical fallacy of compatibilism, not giving my own view.

Ed, I must have simply passed right over it.

1. Permission: authorization to do something.

2. So then do you believe in double predestination, that God chose who would not be saved?

I am trying to understand more of where you are coming from. Most compatibilists make the argument that God didn't decree their eternal state but simply passed over them because of their own sin. That paints a picture of conditional reprobation when election is unconditional. It sounds like you are saying that God election and reprobation are both unconditional.

Based on your definition, God did permit the fall since He did not force or coerce it. However, to permit is not inconsistent with decree for what God decreed to happen He certainly permitted to happen, for instance, the sinful act of murdering the Son of God was both decreed and permitted. Does God turn loose and say, as was Calvin's concern, go do whatever you want and sit in His tower as a passive by-stander, reacting now and then to the acts of free creatures? Me Genoitai! May it never be.

Double predestination is spoken of in a much softer tone because it involves the frightening judgment of God upon wicked men. If everything that happens, happens by decree, then it follows that men are passed over by decree. God decreed to leave men in their sin, withholding from them that grace that would result in their regeneration and restoration. This is His divine perogative. Did God force men into their predicament? Absolutely not! Did He force this upon the unwilling creature? Not a chance. In some things God's providence works directly, such as regeneration, while in others there is an intermediary, such as anything involving sinful acts. Compatiblist typically soften the rhetoric in the area of reprobation because of the nature of that doctrine, but when pressed on the matter, the consistent Calvinist compatibilist will answer as I have or someplace close.

I agree with Ed. Any consistent Calvinist will have to acknowledge that double predestination is correct. It is also pretty clear from Romans 9.

I have the freedom at lunchtime to go wherever I want to go to eat. However, my freedom has limitations; how much time I have, how much money I can spend, etc. So my free will choice for where I go to eat lunch is not a libertarian free will choice, as there are constraints placed on it.

In the same manner mankind does not have an unfettered free will - it is constrained by his nature. God doesn't force mankind to do evil or good (to act in a specific way); mankind acts in the way his nature forces him to. Therefore God is not culpable for man's decisions.

http://www.theopedia.com/Libertarian_free_will ]Theopedia on Libertarian free will

So, I don't see anything in the above that is in disagreement with the classical Calvinistic position. There are relevant details that you don't mention. But before we talk about that, let's focus on this first.

What I meant when I asked you to contrast man's ability to will with God's is to ask you, what is the difference between man choosing and God choosing something.
And to deal with that, you have to think about the nature of the garden's and Adam's perfection and what it means for Adam to be perfect. We have in our mind a confusion between the concept of Adam's perfection being in context and the idea of perfection meaning that Adam was superman. And Adam was not superman. The reason Adam did not get sick was not because of his invincible immune system, but because he was placed in a garden where virii and bacteria were not trying to invade his system. Adam's skin was not impenetrable to the teeth of a tiger, but rather, the tiger did not seek to kill and eat Adam. Adam's perfection was in part due to the garden's perfection. It was a good place for Adam. God could not have placed Adam as he was made into the bowl of a volcano and told him to be fruitful and multiple and not expect Adam to die a horrible lava-induced death.

So here are some questions along these lines to think about:
If Adam was hungry could he choose to not eat indefinitely? (if not, he doesn't have libertarian free will, but God does)
Did Adam get tired and need to sleep? (if so, he did not have a libertarian free will, but God does)
Was Adam required to react to the decisions of others or were his decisions able to made independently of others decisions (for instance, when Eve ate the fruit, she was going to die. Could the fact that she was going to die, influence Adam's decisions in any way? Because God knows all things from the beginning and can ordain all things, there has never been a point where the outcome to one of his decisions or the decisions of anyone else would alter any of his choices. God has absolute libertarian free will. Does Adam?)

Let me know if this makes sense or if this is not useful.

Thanks,
Charles

But of course, except for Adam and Eve, none of us had a choice in having a sin nature -- it was forced upon us. If we can freely act within the bounds of that nature, but not outside of it, i.e., we cannot choose good, how is that a real choice? We are then sinners before we are even cognizant of it, not because of our own will. Of course, we will to sin afterward, but does that really make a difference at that point if we are already condemned?

JohnBrian

How is this helpful in explaining the fall since Adam did not have a sin nature?

Ed, I am not sure if you were directing that last post to me or not. You keep saying "libertarian freedom" in your posts. By that do you mean a Pelagian view that allows for the goodness of man to freely do anything, including choose good? If that is what you mean, then I doubt anyone has been arguing that.

By the way, I have been interacting with compatibilism. Giving my view on this very complex structure doesn't change my examination of your view. I have stayed away from it because it would take the focus off what I was here to do. It isn't a courage issue, it is an I want to stay focused issue.

We are sinners from our inception (Psalm 51:5) and are justly condemned. Adam represented us well, and it is because we had a representative who turned us away from God, that we can have a 2nd representative that will turn us back to God (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Steve Hays posted some comments from an article he linked to.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/01/5-boilerplate-objections-to-calvi... 5 boilerplate objections to Calvinism .

Since it has bearing on this thread here is 1 of the comments (emphasis mine):

Wrong Jay. You need to establish the truthfulness of libertarian freedom on its own steam and that proof must be exegetical. This, sir, with all due respect, you CANNOT do. Arminius could not do it. The Remonstants could not do it. Your best theologians, Norm Geisler and Bill Craig have not been able to do it. But I would like to see your argument just to see if you have thought of something that those fellows have overlooked.

Couple of things here Ed.

1. I have given you affirmations and denials.
2. None of the scriptures you posted contradict anything I believe.
3. You have repeatedly projected ideas on me that I do not hold to.
4. I have quoted other compats who have admitted it is illogical.
5. You are arguing closer to a hard determinist than a compatibilist.
6. You have appealed to mystery.

In light of that...

1. This is not about what God has the right to do or is able to do. This is about what God DID do.
2. Some people push sovereignty so far, that it is fatalism. I know most calvinists back off from that, because you recognize that we are not automatons.

I argue from the perspective that there was never at any time in the mind of God uncertainty about our world that He created. There is no timeline prior to the creation of time. This includes what He does, how He does it, what the angels do, what man does, what the animals do... God is actively involved in and both causes and directs events. Sometimes, God causes things to happen because He has set natural laws in place. Other times He suspends His own laws to cause and allow other things to happen. God knows our world and every possibility of other worlds. Exactly how God's sovereignty and knowledge work together is the mystery to us, not His character.

First, the Scriptures I quoted demonstrate that the only view that can be true is compatibilism because those Scripture plainly reveal 1) God does everything He pleases and nothing happens outside His sovereign decree. 2) Man freely chose, without coercion or compulsion to choose autonomy over submission. THAT IS COMPATIBILISM! What Scripture does not provide is the intricacies for how God brought the fall to eventuation. No compatiblist I know would ever admit the view to be actually inconsistent in any way. What they say is that it involves paradox which is to say that it can give the appearance of inconsistency or contradiction but it is not. My answer to this charge is so too does the trinity and the hypostatic union and even the idea that God can condescend in a way to be involved in time. Secondly, I charge those who wish to make human reason the magistrate over faith with idolatry. Reason was never meant to lord it over faith. To say our faith is reasonable is backwards. We do not have a reasonable faith. Rather, we engage in faithful reasoning. The entire fact of our existence is a mystery. Reason is not able to account for that no more than it is able to account for God. Overreliance on reason leads men to all sorts of pernicious and wicked errors.

Secondly, it seems to me that God chose to make the creature in order to display Himself in all His glory. Moreover, it seems that God's attributes, His being, His character are put on display in creation, the election, in the atonement, the law, reprobation, eternal punishment, Israel, the Church, etc, etc. Everything that is, is because God wanted to display His holiness, power, love, grace, mercy, kindness, justice, tenderness, etc, etc, etc. When we look at events, we should always ask the question, "what does this say about the King, the God of all creation?"

We get to this place by a simple and honest exegetical study and humble reception of all that His revelation tells us. We do NOT subject that revelation to any human magistrates, be it reason, science, or any other idolatrous method we have managed to conjure up. What that revelation teaches us, we simply bow the knee and faithfully say, glory to God in the highest who was, is, and is to come. Praise His name forevermore.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

Paul takes us to the very same point the compatibilist takes us. He demands that God is sovereign, that man is responsible, and that we have absolutely NOTHING to say about it. Our duty is to simply say "yes Lord." How dare we respond to God with a challenge and say, well, if God decreed it, then Adam is not responsible and that makes God immoral! Paul says, God decreed it, man is sill responsible, and open not thy mouth. The minute we attempt to go beyond the text, we sin. This is Paul's whole point here. If God's sovereignty cannot be impugned in Pharaoh's case, it logically cannot be impugned in Adam's fall.

There you have it fellows: Paul was a compatibilist! He stopped at the very same place modern compatibilist stop. The funny thing is that he was dealing with the same old opposing arguments that James and Jay are making here even though they don't quite agree on other things, they seem to have more in common here than not.

God did allow sin and since all He does, and even all He allows, is for the ultimate goal of His glory, I will continue to insist that God is still blameless and is not the author of sin.

Any alternative is unacceptable, as from my viewpoint, it must necessarily take away from God being a sovereign ruler.

James, the entire reason I provided Paul's treatment on this is that Paul in fact deals with what God DID in fact do with Pharaoh. At a minimum, if Paul believed God could do it with Pharoah without culpability, which he clearly does, then what would be the problem with making the same contention with Adam? God punished Pharaoh specifically for refusing to let Israel go! And it was for this very reason God raised him up, so that he WOULD refuse to let Israel God. God hardened His heart and then punished him for doing exactly what He had raised him up to do.

I think I am finished with this discussion. I wish you well in your search for truth. I was converted in 1979 at 14 years of age. It took me 20 years to fully arrive at the truth in reformed theology.

One major different between Adam and Pharaoh is that Adam was created very good with no knowledge of sin. Pharaoh was a pagan worshiped as a god. One reason to take him down was to also assault the Egyptian gods (which the plagues did).

Compare apples to apples.

I think there is truth in reformed theology. Reformed theology does not have truth locked in a tower kept all to itself though.

I feel like Michael Corleone. Every time I try to leave, I get sucked back in. If there is anything substantial, I will get back in.

At this particular time I do not have the time nor energy to examine Boettner or Reymond, so maybe we should lest this thread pass away peacefully.

God told Moses he would harden Pharoah's heart. Therefore, Pharoah's heart would be hardened. It was decreed, determined, ordained...just like Joseph's brother's actions, just like the things that happened to Job, just like God's "servant" Cyrus who punished God's people, just like the death of Jesus, and just like countless other examples in Scripture from beginning to end.

Romans 9 has already been mentioned in relationship to Pharoah, and to me it couldn't be clearer. What also couldn't be clearer are the statements in Acts regarding the parallel truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in the most heinous sin to ever occur in human history, the death of Christ (forgive me if these have been mentioned already):

These two parallel truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility help us understand every sin that has ever occured throughout human history.

Romans 9:17 (NIV) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

“I raised you up”: (ἐξήγειρά) exēgeira )– means arouse or incite (any Greek source you wish).

The use of this word which is translated "I raised you up" in attempting to connect it to some preformed plan of God's creative purpose for Pharaoh is to violate its defining property. It simply is used to refer to the arousing or inciting of someone. In other words it could have been just as accurately translated, “I incited you for this very purpose”.

And God incited Pharaoh, thus causing him to become embittered and hardening his heart, precisely what God knew would happen. And through the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart which resulted in Pharaoh not cooperating with God but maintaining his refusal, God showed his power via the plagues. And then, when he relented and let them go, Pharaoh did so reluctantly and evidently disingenuously and in his stubbornness, Pharaoh chased Moses and company resulting in God’s power, again, being shown through the parting of the sea and the destruction, after a safe crossing of the Israelites, of the Egyptians army.

John Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-l...

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-l... ]Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be?

Is God the Author of Sin?

Jay,

I think we've come to the heart of it. When you hear, "Man must necessarily do X," you infer, "Man is forced to do X." But a compatibilist rejects that force or coercion is the same thing as metaphysical necessity. You can do freely what you do necessarily. The greatest example of this is God. God is necessarily good; he does not have the option of being evil. But he is the most free being in the universe. This goes all the way back to Augustine; it's not just a Calvinist thing. And, of course, there are many compatibilist philosophers who are not religious at all.

As for the first passage, I don't see the problem, b/c I don't see divine knowledge of counterfactuals as problematic for any of the major philosophical viewpoints.

As for the second, the only two options are 1) to admit that underneath seemingly unconditional statements are implicit conditions or 2) to embrace an open theism or process theology view of God. That is, either 1) God told Hezekiah what he told him in order to provoke the response that it did, or 2) Hezekiah actually changed God's mind, which is not compatible with any strand of orthodox theology (Catholic, Eastern, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc.).

1) Necessity vs. force. Saying that God's decree makes something metaphysically necessary is not the same as saying God is the direct efficient cause of X or that he forces X to happen. Analytic philosophers have examples of this that I simply can't go into here, but if you don't accept it ... fine, but realize that compatibilists (and others) do distinguish between necessity and causality.

2) On the Hezekiah situation, I don't know that you've sufficiently appreciated Boyd's position. Because your own position seemingly has God being untruthful. You believe that God knows the future. So, God knew before he told Hezekiah that he would die that Hezekiah would pray and that God would ... change his own mind. So, if God knows that he is going to change his mind and let Hezekiah live, he is still lying when he says "You will not recover." By the way, I think the idea that one can know that one is going to change one's mind is absolutely incoherent. If I think X, but I know tomorrow I will be convinced of Y, then really, I am already convinced of Y. "Changing my mind" is a function of temporal existence and lack of foreknowledge. So, my alternative is that God told Hezekiah truth, but not the whole truth: "You will not recover (unless you repent)." God sometimes tests people in this way - Abraham and Isaac, Jonah at Ninevah. In any case, it's not possible for God to have exhaustive foreknowledge and change his mind. That's Boyd's point and my point.

3) I never heard back on God's freedom. I think it's a crucial issue. It was crucial for Augustine during the Pelagian controversy. Everyone in orthodox Christianity agrees that God not only does not sin, but cannot sin. Sin is not an option for God. So ... does God lack free will? If so, then free will is actually a bad thing, since God has (is) all possible perfections. But no, that's silly. God is free, so the correct definition of freedom must be modeled on God. Freedom then, is the ability to act 1) in accordance with my will and 2) in keeping with what is good. Augustine uses the saints in heaven as a similar but lesser example. Saints in heaven do not have the ability to sin (non posse peccare); but they are the most free of all of us! Or, if you insist that they are not free, then freedom as you define it isn't something we want or need. I think this is the most important piece of the argument, because it is explicitly theological, not just something that analytic philosophers can wrangle about endlessly.

This conversation comes at an interesting time for me. I'm enrolled in a predestination/freedom/moral-effort class with a Lutheran professor at a Catholic university. It's fun.

I am both amused and puzzled at how quickly some are to post what others have to say about scripture, but don't actually engage the scripture for answers. Throughout this whole thread, compatibilists have affirmed:

1. God is sovereign first cause of all things
2. God is not the directly responsible person for sin

It is an obvious logical error. They then appeal to mystery. For proof that they are right, they will quote Piper (not even someone who agrees with them), the WCF (which didn't even bother to acknowledge the error), or something else.

Here once again is the question that NOT A SINGLE COMPATIBILIST HAS TRIED TO ANSWER THIS ENTIRE THREAD:

If nothing happens apart from God's will, and Adam's sin was in line with God's will, why was Adam's sin wrong? In other words, if Adam was simply doing what God willed for him to do, why is Adam wrong to do God's will?

The answer cannot be that God said it was sin because then God has 2 conflicting wills, putting Adam in a no win situation, and therefore having unjust weights and balances, something God hates.

Talking about going round and round in ciricles James. God willed men to murder the Son of God. These men will be judged for their wicked deed EVEN though that sinful deed was predetermined from eternity past. Moving this from Adam to the Christ event does nothing to solve the problem you have created for yourself. As a compatibilist, I answered your queston a dozen different ways and then some. You just refuse to listen. There is nothing I can do about that. You are left with a God who cannot control His creation. Calvinists are left with something we can't quite fully explain...like God...like the Trinity...like the hypostatic union...like the very existence of sin....like divine aseity....et cetera. But at least we know nothing happens that God has not ordained to come to pass and knowing that, we have great peace and confidence in our Maker!