Origins of Evil and Will of Man

[JohnBrian]

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.

[Emphasis above mine.]

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?

[Jay C.]

I really need to think this through carefully because I’ve never gone here before, but let me take a quick stab at your question - do we possibly err when we talk about God “making a choice” and compare His choice to human choice? After all, God knows everything, is all wise, and all powerful.

I think that one of the distinctions that Calvinism attempts to make is that our ability to choose and God’s ability to choose are indeed different. This is where the discussion about what “free will” means comes from in part. Calvinism would affirm that man has free will within a context of freedom whereas God’s will is free to do exactly and completely what he desires. And God is the only being that can behave so freely.

[Jay C.] It seems to me that we have to make choices because we are finite and do not see or comprehend things like Him and therefore have to make decisions on what we think is going to have the best outcome. God, on the other hand, has no deficiencies that would cause Him to do that. Yet there are passages where God clearly speaks of “choosing” something - Romans 9, for example - but that’s a lot different because of who God is (self-sustaining) and who we are (unsustaining); it’s also different because God’s ability to select is simply based on who He is. We choose things because we are not sure what the outcomes are and therefore have to make a decision based on the information that we do have at hand.

I don’t think it is true that for a choice or a decision to actually be a decision that there had to be two options. If I pulled out a gun and aimed it at you, I do not know if you are currently so depressed that you will just sit there and say, “Go ahead and shoot”, or if you are in a healthy state of mind and will try to get out of the way or attack me. But the fact that I’m not sure what state you are in does not mean that you in reality you “could be” in either state (some indeterminate state). In reality, you are in one state and under those exact circumstances with the same information, the same amount of time to respond, you would make one single choice. Anyone who tries to argue, “Well, I could be completely happy and just choose to let you shoot me” needs to sit down and really think about what they are saying.

[Jay C.] I do not mean to imply that Adam is somehow ‘superman’ or ‘superhuman’ unless you compare him to any other human. Since Adam was created without sin, and all other humans are dead in sin because we have all descended from him (Romans 5:12-19), Adam’s body and physical abilities were probably superior to ours - again, because he was created by God prior to the Fall, but I do not think that there is any difference in Adam’s ability to reason and think and choose (so long as you leave the corruption of the sin nature out of it - which is a whole other discussion that would need to occur).

As for your questions, if Adam does have libertarian free will (to borrow JohnBrian’s term), then yes, I do think that Adam would have the ability to refuse to eat if he was hungry, or to skip sleep if he was tired. I do think that his decision to sin was different from Eve, who has said that was deceived. Besides, Adam, as the head of the First Family, was ultimately responsible to God for his behavior. Adam could have chosen to sin because Eve didn’t die immediately after eating the fruit. Adam could have chosen to sin because he was hungry. Adam could have chosen to sin because he honestly believed the serpent…I can’t speak as to why or how Adam came to his decision, but I do know that Adam’s sin was no surprise or shock to God, who is able to comprehend a reality where Adam rejected Eve’s offer (leaving us in a world where Eve sins but he does not), or where Adam kept Eve from sinning (so neither sin), or something else.

What I mean by Adam being superman, is that his excellence is in his body. Superman doesn’t need to breathe or eat. he is dependent on nothing. His skin is impenetrable. He can’t be affected by things that would affect lesser men.

But here is where you have to think about it some more:

Christ and Adam are clearly contrasted, to the point that Christ is called the second Adam (and we know that Christ exceeded Adam, He being also God). So. if Adam could choose to not eat, could Christ? Was Christ’s hunger and thirst on the cross mere pageantry? In what way was Christ’s perfection different from Adam? We seem to get the indication that when Christ fasted for 40 days that he was in a state that made him more vulnerable, that his not eating made him better able to identify with our sufferings and our pains, and this his ability to resist temptation at that point was more significant because he had been so weakened. Also in contrast to Adam, Christ was clearly not in the same type of “good” environment that Adam was. Had Christ’s flesh been affected by sin or did he have the same time of flesh as Adam? (consider Romans 6 & 7, my understanding is that Paul is telling us that our spirit has been freed from bondage from sin, but our flesh has not been redeemed in that way yet - so in that vein, was Christ’s flesh in bondage to sin as mine is?) In the same way that Adam’s perfection as the man who would fall was in context, I would argue that Christ’s perfection as the Messiah who would not fall was also in context. Sometimes when we think of Christ being perfect, we think that he could do anything better than anyone else, but I don’t think that makes sense from the way Scripture talks about goodness. Christ would not have made the best center the NBA had ever seen. He could not have replaced a linebacker in the NFL. He was physically unremarkable, and this was a part of his being a perfect Messiah (had he been extremely attractive, the crowds following him might be dismissed as being for charismatic reasons). He was placed into Israel at a specific point in history.

Anyway, I think all of these things are related. For me, I held a wrong idea of the perfection of Adam for a very long time and it caused some real problems with how I thought about and interacted with the gospel. It caused some problems with how I thought about Christ.

I hope this is useful,

Charles

JohnBrian

Since all men have a sinful nature until they become a new creature in Christ, they will freely act in that nature.

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

There is no contradiction between freedom and foreknowledge unless one insists on libertarian freedom which is denied throughout Scripture. God is not culpable for Adam’s sin unless God coerced or forced Adam to sin. You have never demonstrated the contrary.

Now, to show why anyone should continue listening to your argument, you need to show that libertarian freedom is true. It is not enough to just say so. You must show how an exegetical analysis of Scripture leads to a libertarian freedom in man. Then you must show how that position in no way contradicts all the Scriptures that speak about God’s absolute and sovereign control over all things. He is LORD over all actually is more than just a name or a title. It has significance, far more than western minds realize.

I don’t mean to be rude in any way. I am just tired of hearing all about what people don’t believe and what can’t be true when they don’t have the courage to tell us what is true and why, in thier opinion, the bible teaches it to be true.

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.

[Jay C.]

[edingess] There is no contradiction between freedom and foreknowledge unless one insists on libertarian freedom which is denied throughout Scripture. God is not culpable for Adam’s sin unless God coerced or forced Adam to sin. You have never demonstrated the contrary.

Now, to show why anyone should continue listening to your argument, you need to show that libertarian freedom is true. It is not enough to just say so. You must show how an exegetical analysis of Scripture leads to a libertarian freedom in man. Then you must show how that position in no way contradicts all the Scriptures that speak about God’s absolute and sovereign control over all things. He is LORD over all actually is more than just a name or a title. It has significance, far more than western minds realize.

I don’t mean to be rude in any way. I am just tired of hearing all about what people don’t believe and what can’t be true when they don’t have the courage to tell us what is true and why, in thier opinion, the bible teaches it to be true.

Ed,

We could go round and round for ages on this - it’s obvious that you have no desire to cede any ground to the libertarian free will position, and I and others have already asked several questions that we’d like to see you answer. Here they are again; if you’ve answered them, please let me know:

1. Furthermore, what’s the point in praying when God already knows and has perfectly foreordained everything that will occur? (Post #28) By this I mean, what is the purpose of prayer if God has perfectly ordained everything that will come to pass? I am not arguing that we should not - I am arguing why would God ask us to pray when our prayers will or will not be efficacious and He knows that in advance?

2. Wait a second - where does it say anywhere in the Scripture that it was God’s will for Adam to sin and bring spiritual death into the world? (Post #34)

3. So you do believe that God can (and does) command demons to sin against Him?

That passage, by the way, is not causative. It is the demonic spirit that offers to lie, and God who says that he will be persuasive and prevail and to go. God never explicitly tells the demon to lie to Ahab.

By the way, who or what is the demonic spirit persuasive over? It is not referring to Ahab’s decision making ability? - Post #74, asked of Charles C but I’d like to hear your answer.

4. My contention is simple - If God forces mankind to act in a specific way (as both determinists and double-predestination people believe), then He is ultimately culpable for man’s ‘decisions’ - for how can someone be held responsible if God decrees that they must disobey? - Post #116

5. Not my question, but both James K. and I would like to see an rebuttal to post #65.

Oh, and by the way -

[#88] You and Jay C have been asked repeatedly to show how God’s sovereignty actually violates James 1:13, which is being lifted out of context to begin with, and you have yet to provide one plausible statement to that end. You have been shown and even admitted that God, through a variety of antecedents involving sin, brought about the crucifixion of Christ, the betrayal by Judas, the calamity of Job, the deception of Jacob, the humiliation of the great Pharaoh, and even the union of David and Bethsheba. And the best you can do in your responses is to say, “I disagree because of James 1:13 .” You nor Jay C have provided not one viable alternative that does not deform God by downgrading His knowledge and sovereignty.

If I have argued - anywhere - in this thread that God is not sovereign or omniscient, quote it. That’s an untrue statement, and you should know that. I’ve even supplied Scripture that teaches it.

@James K., re: #98 - no problem. I’m actually enjoying this because it’s making me think about it and defend what I believe to be the best position, and I know it’s nothing personal. Maybe God has foreordained that I change my mind as a result of this… ;D

1. God has ordained prayer as one means by which He providentially carries out His decree. Moreover, we are commanded to pray and pray is an indication of our complete reliance and dependence on God.

2. Nothing happens outside of God’s pleasure. God works everything according to the purpose of His plan and good pleasure. He does as He pleases. I provided numerous passages of Scriptures to this end in a previous post. IF YOU DENY THIS, YOU DENY SOVEREIGNTY. If you say that anything happens outside of God’s sovereign decree,-double you are denying sovereignty.

3. God COMMANDS no one to sin against Him. Who in the world says such nonsense? God does not force anyone to sin. God does not coerce anyone to sin. Yet, sin cannot exist outside of God decreeing it. Otherwise, God is not sovereign. Sin entered and He was helpless to stop it. God wanted to stop sin, but did not know how? God wanted to stop sin, but was not powerful enough?

4. Calvinist DO NOT BELIEVE GOD FORCES ANYONE TO ACT IN A SPECIFIC WAY. It has been stated REPEATEDLY that this is the case and you simply don’t seem to be listening or just plain don’t understand. Either way, you are frustrating the daylights out of me by your constant refusal to listen.

How did sin enter the world without God?

[dcbii] 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?

We have freedom within the bounds of our nature. God also is bound by His nature. He does not have the freedom to do that which is against His nature, such as lie. Back to the eating out illustration - once I choose KFC, for example, I am limited in my lunch choices to that which KFC offers - I cannot choose KFC and then choose hamburgers (to my understanding, libertarian free will insists that we can choose KFC and hamburgers).

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).

[Jay C.] How would you define Calvinism, then?

With regard to the issue of the existence of sin, I believe that it’s existence serves a purpose as the only other option is sin that is purposeless. Since I affirm that God is most interested in His glory, I conclude that God receives glory for exhibiting His justice and wrath on the unregenerate, while receiving glory for exhibiting mercy and grace on the regenerate.

There are a number of illustrations from Scripture that have already been pointed out in this thread that show that very thing. The case of Joseph and his brothers is one. Both Joseph and his brothers sinned, but their sin was the means God used to take the people into Egypt. The crucifixion of Jesus is another. In Peter’s Acts 2 sermon (Acts 2:14-39), he shows that God’s purpose regarding Jesus is accomplished by the “lawless hands” of the people. God didn’t force them to crucify Jesus, but at the same time His purpose was accomplished.

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

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

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

If you believe in the omnipotence and omniscience of God (in the classical senses), then you believe in a form of determinism. To flesh that out: if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then every event in the history of the universe is either caused by God or permitted by God. And because God is omniscient, He knows exactly how His decisions to cause, prevent, and permit events will shape the course of history. Therefore, God knows the exact Universe that His own actions will result in, and so every single event in the history of the Universe, down to the proverbial “fall of a sparrow”, is in a sense “caused”, “decreed”, or “ordained” by God. Ephesians 1:11 seems to support this conclusion.

Within this framework, the decisions of agents are in a sense predetermined. Since God has complete knowledge of the psychology of all agents and has complete control over all the factors that influence a given decision, He can manipulate the Universe in order to determine the outcome of the decision. There are numerous suggestions throughout the Bible that God is sovereign over human decisions, from the classic example of the hardening of Pharoah to the many mentions in the Prophets of God “raising up nations” to do His bidding.

If I am correct in all of this so far, then classical Arminianism does not solve the essential problem of God desiring all people to be saved and yet not saving all people. Open Theism, which modifies the traditional understanding of God’s omniscience, is the only way to preserve truly libertarian free will. Otherwise, we must choose between either pure determinism or a form of compatiblism that appeals to antinomy. Due to the Scriptural emphasis on human responsibility, I opt for the latter.

Comment by Stephen Hesed — December 27, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

[JohnBrian]

[Jay C.] How would you define Calvinism, then?

With regard to the issue of the existence of sin, I believe that it’s existence serves a purpose as the only other option is sin that is purposeless. Since I affirm that God is most interested in His glory, I conclude that God receives glory for exhibiting His justice and wrath on the unregenerate, while receiving glory for exhibiting mercy and grace on the regenerate.

There are a number of illustrations from Scripture that have already been pointed out in this thread that show that very thing. The case of Joseph and his brothers is one. Both Joseph and his brothers sinned, but their sin was the means God used to take the people into Egypt. The crucifixion of Jesus is another. In Peter’s Acts 2 sermon (Acts 2:14-39), he shows that God’s purpose regarding Jesus is accomplished by the “lawless hands” of the people. God didn’t force them to crucify Jesus, but at the same time His purpose was accomplished.

Bravo! Exellent post.

[dcbii]

[JohnBrian]

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.

[Emphasis above mine.]

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?

Some kids are told from the outset that there is no Santa Clause. This would be my case. I never even considered the idea as true. However, some kids are told that there really is a Santa that climbs down chimneys, places presents around the Christmas tree, knows if you have been naughty or nice, likes cookies and milk, etc. Suppose, for a second that we are flies on the wall of a fictional conversation. The two characters will be John & Doe.

J: Do you believe in Santa?

D: No way. That is make believe.

J: Are you kidding? How can you say that? Of course Santa is real!

D: No he isn’t.

J: How then do the gifts get under the tree then?

D: Our parents! Duh!

J: But my parents told me that Santa is real, so they can’t be the ones that put the presents there.

D: Well, there is no Santa. I watch my parents put the presents under the tree every year, and there are no new ones.

J: The reason why there are no new ones is that you are naughty not to believe in Santa.

D: You can’t say that. Now, you are calling my parents liars.

J: You started it when you said Santa was make-believe.

D: How about this? Stay up and listen for movement outside of your room, and when you hear people and presents moving, then open the door and see your parents putting the gifts out.

J: That is pointless because Santa is the one that puts the gits out.

D: This is going in circles. I’m done.

The point of this little conversation is to demonstrate how John keeps assuming Santa; this belief colors his assumptions about Doe and his parents. In short, the question of Santa’s existence keeps getting begged over and over. It is a belief that determines how other things are viewed.

The conversation so far has been like that. This is a comparison using “like” or “as”. (C=compatibilist; A=against compatibilism)

C: Compatibilism is true. The Bible declares it.

A: It cannot, for this would make God to force us, and then He would be culpable. Compatibilism is false.

C: No one is saying that God is forcing anyone; He is not culpable.

A: Yes He is focing because He is not giving men a choice.

C: No one is saying that God is not giving people choices; an ordained choice is still a choice.

A: but did they have the choice to be ordained or not?

C: You are assuming a libertarian view of the will, choice, and responsibility then. This is an absurd view.

A: No, your view is absurd, for it makes God culpable for man’s sin.

I’m sorry for any misrepresentation. Please take this conversation only in-so-far as it correctly represents the discussion so far. I have brought up these “conversations” so as to point out one simple little things. Libertarian freedom keeps getting begged over and over against the Compatibilist, when the Compatibilist is using and functioning off of another view of the will, choice, and responsibility. You must first establish libertarian freedom in order to critique compatibilism; you cannot just keep begging the question of its supposed reality over and over. The Compatibilist will keep responding to you that your assumptions are falsely built off of an imaginary Santa Clause that is no where in the Bible. You cannot keep assuming, over and over, the standards and rules of libertarian freedom and its view of responsibility in the discussion. Please validate it.

I will end this posting with a simple quote from a book, where I believe he nails the fact that libertarian freedom not only does not help regarding the issue of responsibility; but rather this assumption actually makes the matter worse. The following is a quotation from Bertrand Russell. Before I begin, I must make a request. Please, and I do not know if you will do this, but please do not resort to the guilt by association tactic if you decide to respond to this. Yes, he was a bad man (an atheist), but the point at issue here is not his character and its association, but the point at issue in this quote is the argument made with respect to the chance view of the will (libertarianism). This is made as an argument where Russell appears before God at the judgment.

“Now, I realize I was wrong about there not being any God, but I don’t quite see how you can send me to hell. After all, you created me with a free will and never made any effort to prevent me from acting in accordance with its dictates. This free will has always been autonomous from any previous causation and from your control in particular. Although I have often thought that perhaps it would be better if my free will acted according to my intellect, sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. In fact, it doesn’t seem to act according to any pattern at all. Because it is an uncaused cause of my actions, it seems totally random, and therefore unpredictable. I have had no real control of it at all, since you created it autonomous. I am simply not responsible for chance events that I cannot control or predict. How can you send me to hell for actions arising from a free will which, because it is free, is also not under my control?”

=====================

The quote from Bertrand Russell was taken from the following book. R. K. McGregor Wright, “No Place For Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism” (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1996), p. 48.

[Jay C.] Good post, and I think it’s a fair summation of the thread so far. I do have a mild disagreement with you, though. When you write:

You must first establish libertarian freedom in order to critique compatibilism; you cannot just keep begging the question of its supposed reality over and over. The Compatibilist will keep responding to you that your assumptions are falsely built off of an imaginary Santa Clause that is no where in the Bible. You cannot keep assuming, over and over, the standards and rules of libertarian freedom and its view of responsibility in the discussion. Please validate it.

The problem with your assertion is that in order to do what you want, we must essentially acknowledge the compatibilist view as true; for how else could I explain the libertarian view and contrast it to the compatibilist without acknowledging the superiority of compatibilism? The onus for assertions lies on the one who makes the assertion - in this case, both parties of asserters.

When dealing with issues of worldview, everyone - especially compatibilists - make assumptions; that’s why I’ve intentionally tried to supply as much Scripture as I can in this thread. There’s no way around that. So I find that it is a little silly to say that only libertarian free will has to defend it’s existence and compatibilism doesn’t.

Is that helpful to you?

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.

Does a person have to exegetically prove that creationism is true in order to refute the idea that a giant kangaroo did a magic trick on a sleeping turtle to create our universe? I say sleeping turtle, cuz an awake turtle in that situation would not have worked.

Of course that is nonsense. I can say that 5 + 7 does not equal 10 without proving that it equals 12.

I can argued that compatibilism is not consistent with revelation without getting into everything I believe. My purpose here has been to point out the inconsistencies of compatibilism. Yet I am not the only one. I have provided quotes from compats who admitted exactly my point.

So to review, I find it inconsistent and some well known compats find it inexplainable or inconsistent. The combats who have admitted my point have impeccable Calvinist credentials. The arguments against arminians have nothing to do with my point.

[Jay C.] Could you please define Calvinism?

Not sure exactly what you are looking for in a definition, as I thought I had defined it in relation to this thread

[James K] Does a person have to exegetically prove that creationism is true in order to refute the idea that a giant kangaroo did a magic trick on a sleeping turtle to create our universe? I say sleeping turtle, cuz an awake turtle in that situation would not have worked.

Of course that is nonsense. I can say that 5 + 7 does not equal 10 without proving that it equals 12.

I can argued that compatibilism is not consistent with revelation without getting into everything I believe. My purpose here has been to point out the inconsistencies of compatibilism. Yet I am not the only one. I have provided quotes from compats who admitted exactly my point.

So to review, I find it inconsistent and some well known compats find it inexplainable or inconsistent. The combats who have admitted my point have impeccable Calvinist credentials. The arguments against arminians have nothing to do with my point.

That is all fine and well James, but we are not here to engage in endless and empty speculation. You have said a million times you find compatibilism inconsistent, but you have not even begin to show WHY it is inconsistent. The best way to show that 5+7 does not equal 10 is to show that it equals 12. Otherwise, after you have shown it does not equal 10, someone else will demand that you show that it does not equal 14, 15, 16…..This is not how we approach questions concerning God’s truth or any truth as far as I know, by speculating about what we think is inconsistent. What a waste of time! The only way you know something to be inconsistent is because to believe SOMETHING else to be true. Otherwise, your position is in danger of being classed as irrational. Why don’t we just start with the millions of gods that man worships and show, one by one, why we think that one is not the one. I have to be honest with you James, that is one of the mist absurd ideas I have seen. Or we could presuppose the God of Scripture to be true and therefore, by inference, every other god is false. That is much easier.

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.

[James K] 6. You have appealed to mystery.

Exactly how God’s sovereignty and knowledge work together is the mystery to us, not His character.

I’m puzzled here.

Your view allows for mystery, but you refuse to accept that compatibilism allows for mystery!

http://www.theopedia.com/Compatibilism] Theopedia contrasting compatibilism & libertarian free will:

Compatibilism, in contrast to Libertarian free will, teaches that people are free, but defines freedom differently. Compatibilism claims that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want— and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. Man freely makes choices, but those choices are determined by the condition of his heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature). Libertarian free will maintains that for any choice made, one could always equally have chosen otherwise, or not chosen at all.

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.

John, this whole discussion is about where the mystery is. Paul even referred to mystery, so that isn’t a problem. Is the mystery about God’s character or in our understanding of how sovereignty and knowledge work together?

Since revelation removes the doubt about God’s holiness, right doctrine would demand the mystery is in the latter.

Ed, if you think that text has any bearing on what I am saying, then you just don’t understand what I am saying. Maybe that is my fault. You just keep glossing over what I keep saying because it does not fit within your system.

The question is not about what God has the right to do or what God can do, but what God DID do. I am not impugning the sovereignty of God. You are impugning the holiness of God by making Him responsible for sin if you are consistent. Since that is contrary to Scripture, I must reject your view. Doctrine must line up with godliness. You might prefer speculative decrees and theories, but I will not base theology in them. I further do not pick one attribute over the others and demand that the others submit to my idea of it. I will not trump all attributes in favor of love, though God is love. I will not do the same to holiness or sovereignty.

So it is wrong to question God’s will, to fault God, to resist God, or to answer back to God. I have not done any of that.

Jay is not making the same arguments as me. I have said that more than once and have even cautioned Jay. You are not reading very carefully.

[Jay C.] The compatibilist view uses ‘mystery’ as a dodge for avoiding the things they don’t want to say - namely, that God mandated sin occur. That’s why James and I have provided so many quotes - because if you’re going to say that, then just say it and make it part of what you own. Don’t take God to that point and then insist that God is still blameless when man obeys God.

I admit that you have provided many quotes. What I’m not convinced of is that when those quotes are taken in the full context of the writing which they are taken from that they say what you say they say.

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 K] You are impugning the holiness of God by making Him responsible for sin if you are consistent.

You insist that such is the case, but in actuality it is your view of compatibilism, that insists that consistency requires making God responsible for sin. The Canons of Dort, and the 1689 Baptist Confession specifically dispute your contention.

I recognize that you have provided quotes from some compatibilists that “seem” to affirm your point, but I am not convinced that a fuller reading of the material would establish such.

The question is not about what God has the right to do or what God can do, but what God DID do. I am not impugning the sovereignty of God. You are impugning the holiness of God by making Him responsible for sin if you are consistent. Since that is contrary to Scripture, I must reject your view. Doctrine must line up with godliness. You might prefer speculative decrees and theories, but I will not base theology in them. I further do not pick one attribute over the others and demand that the others submit to my idea of it. I will not trump all attributes in favor of love, though God is love. I will not do the same to holiness or sovereignty.

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.

[JohnBrian]

[James K] You are impugning the holiness of God by making Him responsible for sin if you are consistent.

You insist that such is the case, but in actuality it is your view of compatibilism, that insists that consistency requires making God responsible for sin. The Canons of Dort, and the 1689 Baptist Confession specifically dispute your contention.

I recognize that you have provided quotes from some compatibilists that “seem” to affirm your point, but I am not convinced that a fuller reading of the material would establish such.

Fine John, feel free to go read the books for yourself. When you have discovered the “fuller reading of the material,” you can contribute something rather than just questioning my accuracy.

Further, I am fully aware of the confessions and canons that calvinists look to for doctrine. They state both the affirmations without trying to harmonize them. I already dealt with this as well. Asserting a position does not make it doctrine.

By the way, have you looked into some of the other contradictions in the 2nd LBCF?

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.

[Jay C.] I am very disappointed that you’re resorted to accusing James K. and myself of misrepresentation, especially when we’re provided pretty clear links or citations to the quoted sections.

I have not accused either of you of misrepresentation. What I have said is that I am not convinced that a fuller reading of the text will establish your arguments. I affirm the clear statements of the Canons of Dort, and the 1689 Baptist Confession, that state that God is NOT the author of sin. You and James insist that compatibilism must necessarily affirm that God is the author of sin.

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.

Actually Jay God tells Moses that He is going to harden Pharoah’s heart before Moses even goes to him the first time.

It is a nonissue as to when Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.

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):

Acts 2:22-23

22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. NIV

Jesus was handed over to the Jews to be condemned to death by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge, therefore, it was predestined to happen. And yet those who handed him over and those who put him to death are “wicked men” responsible for his death.

Acts 4:27-28

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. NIV

God decided beforehand it would happen, and so it happened. And yet Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Jews were guilty of conspiring to kill Jesus.

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

[James K] It is a nonissue as to when Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.

Well, OK then.

Jay, the Bible clearly states that God not only knew what Joseph’s brothers, Pharoah, and Jesus’ murderers would do, He caused it to happen. And yet they were responsible for their own sin. You might think it means God is responsible for sin, but the Bible affirms otherwise.

I’m sorry to respond with a passage that has already been used, Jay, but your question is exactly the question Paul answers in Romans 9!!! Again, if language means anything, I can’t possibly imagine how Paul could have answered your question any more clearly than he does.

Rom 9:17-24

17 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.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath — prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? NIV

(BTW, John MacArthur would agree with me on this. Or should I say, I agree with John MacArthur. :))