Origins of Evil and Will of Man

[James K]

1. I am not sure you want to compare Adam to the knife. That would essentially prove my point. The knife cannot cut the vegetable on its own. It can only do what I want it to.

That’s partly why I said similar. There are differences. In my analogy, the knife is more like evil than Adam specifically. God can use evil in a way that we cannot because he can insure that evil’s existence is merely economic.

[James K]

2. There is a difference in being the first cause and the author, or responsible person. That is not being debated. It is a difference without a distiction on this point though. The compatibilist wants God as the first cause while keeping His hands clean. All the blame goes to Adam. That just doesn’t work. If all the blame is rightly on Adam because he acted independently of God, then that doesn’t square with God as first cause unless God decreed for Adam to sin. Again, if sin is setting your will against God’s, and God willed for Adam to eat the fruit, then Adam did EXACTLY what God wanted and obeyed God’s will. So Adam’s sin was not sin at all. Calvin knew this and is why he called this foolish.

James,

Can you explain to me why Paul says that the pot cannot accuse the potter because he made it thus, but you are arguing that we can accuse God of having dirty hands? You are equating a logical chain with a moral chain and this is not right.

Charles, while I am glad to interact on this, please remember that I did not make up this conflict and that Calvin called compatibilism foolishness.

Previously I showed that Edwards argued that man will do whatever his greatest desire is. God created Adam very good without evil or evil desire. Where did Adam’s desire to sin come from? Since all knowledge proceeds from God, and this is tied to His decrees, then by the admissions of compatibilists, Adam could not have known sin without God somehow working it in him. Even if you blame Satan, just back it up to him. Where did he first get the desire? Compatibilists seem to want God to have tripped Adam by the first affirmation, but not have any responsibility for Adam’s fall in the second affirmation.

I would like to see a compatibilist interact with Post #65.

[James K] Charles, while I am glad to interact on this, please remember that I did not make up this conflict and that Calvin called compatibilism foolishness.

Previously I showed that Edwards argued that man will do whatever his greatest desire is. God created Adam very good without evil or evil desire. Where did Adam’s desire to sin come from? .

James,

Can you show from the text that what Adam was desiring was to sin? Or was his desire for a good thing (food/wisdom) and he sinned to get them?

Eve was deceived, Adam wasn’t. Adam was intentional. Paul said that to Timothy.

[James K] Eve was deceived, Adam wasn’t. Adam was intentional. Paul said that to Timothy.

Thanks.

“…we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. - John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70

Yet his choice of good and evil was free, and not that alone, but the highest rectitude was in his mind and will, and all the organic parts were rightly composed to obedience, until in destroying himself he corrupted his own blessing. Institutes, I.XV.8

Therefore Adam could have stood if he wished, seeing that he fell solely by his own will. Institutes, I.XV.8

But anyone who has been taught by Christ’s lips that all the hairs of the his head are numbered [Matt. 10:30] will look no farther afield for a cause, and will consider that all events are governed buy God’s secret plan. Institutes, I.XVI.2

Let him, threfore, who would beware of this infidelity ever remember that there is no erratic power, or action, or motion in creatures, but that they are governed by God’s secret plan in such a way that nothing happens except what is knowlingly and willingly decreed by him. Institutes, I.XVI.3

Paul Helm says,

Although Calvin does not avow compatibilism in so many words, his views on providence and predestination, as well as his doctrine of the bondage of the will to sin and the need for efficacious grace, fit snugly with compatibilism. Calvin at the Centre, Paul Helm.

Ed, either those quotes prove that Calvin was confused about this issue or that he changed his mind. I gave a quote of his against compatibilism. To be honest, I could not care less what Calvin said since I reject many, many views of his. I find the inconsistency thing a big deal though.

[James K] Ed, either those quotes prove that Calvin was confused about this issue or that he changed his mind. I gave a quote of his against compatibilism. To be honest, I could not care less what Calvin said since I reject many, many views of his. I find the inconsistency thing a big deal though.

You should always provide your reference James and the exact quote with its reference. Calvin was NOT confused. I will go out on a limb and say what Calvin thought was foolish was likely the notion that libertarian freedom could coexist with any form of determinism. And on that he would be right. You are the one that made the comment about Calvin to begin with and I simply showed that your statement was not in accord with what Calvin actually wrote. If all you have is a statement from some source, that would be entirely inadaquate to assess anyone’s view on a subject as complex as compatilbilism.

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.

This conversation is a perfect example of how Liberal theology is the natural logical outworking of Arminian theology. Libertarian freedom is the sacred idol. It must be preserved at all costs. So God ends up being the tortured victim of all kinds of wild speculations.

Gen. 50:20 proves God uses evil intentions of men for His own good pleasure according to His own plan.

Job 23:13-14 The Lord does whatever He desires.

JOb 42:2 “NO PURPOSE OF THINE CAN BE THWARTED.”

Ps. 22:27-28 The LORD rules over all the nations.

Ps. 33:14,15 From His dwelling place He looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, He who fashions the hearts of them all, He who understands all their works.

103:19 The Lord has established His throne in the heavens; and His sovereignty rules over all.

Ps. 115:3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.

135:6 Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in seas and in all deeps.

16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.

Pr. 16:4 The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Pr. 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.

Pr. 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.

Pr. 21:1 The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.

Pr. 19:21 Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will be established.

Pr. 21:31 The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but victory belongs to the Lord.

Isaiah 10:15 Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood.

Isaiah 14:27 For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?

Isaiah 43:13 Even from eternity I am He; and there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?

Isaiah 45:6,7 There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well being and creating calamity [Lit.,”ra”, evil]. I am the Lord who does all these.

Isaiah 45:12 It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, and I ordained all their host.

Isaiah 46:9-11 For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, “My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure”; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.

Daniel 11:36 For that which is decreed will be done.

Amos 3:6-8 If calamity [lit. “ra”, evil] occurs in a city has not the Lord done it? Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets. A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy?

Acts 17:26-28 And He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation…for in Him we live and move and are.

Rom. 9:20 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?

Eph. 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.

This is just a sampling of Scripture that very simply says God really, truly does whatever He wants. He governs all of life from the beginning to the end and everything that happens, happens according to his decree. Nothing happens that the LORD did not plan to happen. NOTHING! This is what it means to be sovereign. The man who says that God can decide not to be sovereign over the free will of man is no different than the open theist or the process heretic. Just like God cannot sin, He cannot decide NOT to be sovereign. Such absurd foolishness would be like saying that God can stop being God if He wants, since He is God. There was a time when I was a young Christian struggling with these ideas that I thought to myself, “perhaps God is powerful enough to decide NOT to know certain things.” But I continued to recognized that whatever answers I found, I had to find them in Scripture. As I grew in the Lord, I realized that there is an ethical component to this discussion that many people miss. There is a humility with which we must clothe ourselves. We must admit that Scrpture denies there to be any truth in the theory that God did not bring about the fall because He brings about all that happens. AND, we must admit that while we know God, in bringing it about, did not tempt Adam or force Adam against His will, nevertheless, He was the ultimate cause in back of it all. He had to be because Scripture teaches He reigns and governs and controls all things. All things are working according to His predetermined plan set in eternity past. Otherwise, Scripture is wrong and God is NOT sovereign. We humbly accept this truth and subdue our wicked desires to know even that which God has been pleased to hide. Rather than engage in foolish specualtion and conclusions that violate and rob God of His essence, we bow the knee in humble submission and thank Him for His grace in choosing us to salvation in His Son.

[James K] There was never a time God did not completely know all things. There are no order of decrees. Talk about speculation…

While the decrees occurred in eternity past and there is no order to them from a temporal perspective, to say there was no order of decrees at all is untennable. There was most certainly, by necessity, a logical ordering of the decrees. The decrees are not one and the same. There are distinctions in them. Therefore, separate decrees exist because individual events exist, albeit such events are unified in God’s overall plan. God’s decree to create is different from God’s decree to redeem. Since they are not the same decree, they must have an ordering. Since they are part of God’s “eternal” plan, there was never a “time” when they did not exist. The decrees are all equally part of God’s eternal plan. It is eternal for a reason. In other words, the decree to create did not come into existence while the others were waiting to be created or decreed. They exist, not in temporal order, but in logical order. Since they are in God eternally, they are without beginning or end. God’s plan exists eternally in God. God is immutable. We cannot say much more than this because God has not revealed all things to man. Some things He kept back for reasons known only to Himself. What He did reveal, He revealed so that we may be transformed while beholding the magnificence of His glory.

πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων Eph. 3:11 refers to God’s “eternal purpose.” This is a purpose that exists in eternity past. There is no temporal ordering involved in anything eternal.

Concerning Edwards’ comments regarding the will, I have some familiarity with Edwards and I think everyone should read his material, especially his views on the freedom of the will. He says that will does what the mind thinks is best. The human mind, in its fallen condition is constricted in its actions by a mind that is darkened, blind, and without understanding making it impossible for fallen man to will the good concerning God. The mind is now hostile to God. Prior to the fall, the mind was free to think God’s thoughts after Him or to think autonomously. The will was still captive to the mind, but since the mind was free, the will also was free, but not free in any libertarian sense. The mind lost this freedom as a result of the curse inflicted on it in the fall.

Edwards distinguishes two principles in man: 1. The natural principle by which man has self-love, natural appetites and passions, etc. These principles are servants to man in his unfallen condition. 2. The superior princple by which man is holy, spiritual, possessing the divine image, and divine love. When man fell, the latter was completed disfigured by the removal of God’s presence. This left the natural principle in a position not to serve, but to dominate.

Edwards says,

If it be inquired how man came to sin, seeing he had no sinful inclinations in him, except God took away his grace from him that he had been wont to give him and so let him fall, I answer, there was no need of that; there was no need of taking away any that had been given him, but he sinned under that temptation because God did not give him more.

Miscellanies, 209 (Accessed via http://edwards.yale.edu).

[James K] Charles, while I am glad to interact on this, please remember that I did not make up this conflict and that Calvin called compatibilism foolishness.

Previously I showed that Edwards argued that man will do whatever his greatest desire is. God created Adam very good without evil or evil desire. Where did Adam’s desire to sin come from?

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

Jay,

Can you clarify within your view the difference between Adam’s ability to will and God’s?

Ed, this is what I posted once before:

It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not by His will, but merely by His permission. Of course, so far as they are evils… I admit they are not pleasing to God. But it is quite a frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, which Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.

taken from Calvin’s “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God.

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.

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.

Ed, I am not arguing that God’s sovereignty violates James 1:13. The issue is not sovereignty vs James 1:13 to me at all. Maybe Jay is arguing that to you, but I have repeatedly affirmed otherwise. You should read more carefully what I am saying instead of thinking I am arguing something I am not because I am outside your box.

We are discussing God’s sovereignty, knowledge, and how they harmonize with the revelation that God, not theological speculation.

This conversation is a perfect example of how Liberal theology is the natural logical outworking of Arminian theology. Libertarian freedom is the sacred idol. It must be preserved at all costs. So God ends up being the tortured victim of all kinds of wild speculations.

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.

This is just a sampling of Scripture that very simply says God really, truly does whatever He wants.

None of which I am arguing against. I affirm every one of those verses. Please interact with what I am actually saying.

While the decrees occurred in eternity past and there is no order to them from a temporal perspective, to say there was no order of decrees at all is untennable. There was most certainly, by necessity, a logical ordering of the decrees.

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.

Again real quick, I do not agree with Jay or his line of argument here. Nothing personal Jay.

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.

Ed if possible, I would like you to interact with Post 65 some. That might help this come back to a helpful discussion.

[James K] 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?

[Jay C.] I’d just like to note that I have no problems with any of the verses that Ed cited in post #88 as a non-Calvinist/Arminian. As I have repeatedly said, God can and does use anything He pleases, but that does not mean that man’s ability to chose as a free moral agent is negated. Nor does it necessitate the error of open theism.

Furthermore:

Concerning Edwards’ comments regarding the will, I have some familiarity with Edwards and I think everyone should read his material, especially his views on the freedom of the will. He says that will does what the mind thinks is best. The human mind, in its fallen condition is constricted in its actions by a mind that is darkened, blind, and without understanding making it impossible for fallen man to will the good concerning God. The mind is now hostile to God. Prior to the fall, the mind was free to think God’s thoughts after Him or to think autonomously. The will was still captive to the mind, but since the mind was free, the will also was free, but not free in any libertarian sense. The mind lost this freedom as a result of the curse inflicted on it in the fall.

I am agree completely with the bolded, but would disagree with the section that is underlined because the Calvinist argues that man was not free in “any libertarian sense” yet cannot bring themselves to vocalize the conclusion that God is ultimately culpable since man can only do God’s foreordained will.

Finally, I’ve yet to read a Calvinist author who didn’t resort to flaming the ‘opposition’, and it’s interesting to see that pattern manifest itself yet again.

I am not sure what flaming the opposition means. Given the context, it seems you might be offended by something I have said. If this is true, then point to it specifically. Don’t beat around the bush. It wastes time. I have made no personal insults. Ideas have consequences, some more severe than others. No man is free to believe whatever he wishes. You cannot hold to sovereignty and libertarian freedom, such a view is indeed severely untennable. Perhaps you have a different understanding of libertarian freedom? The notion of libertarian freedom contends that acts of the human will are uncaused by anything outside itself. In other words, the will itself is determinative. I would have to say that such a view is perposterous in light of the nature of man. Calvinist contend that the will is free, if by free you mean that it is free to do as the mind pleases or thinks is best. But to say the will is completely set loose from cause is nowhere demonstrable in Scripture’s revelation of the nature of man. From the bolded section above one necessarily MUST conclude that the underlined is true. Edwards is contending that the will is captive to the mind. This is a direct refutation of the idea of libertarian freedom! In libertarian freedom, the will is not beholden to anything.

[James K]

This conversation is a perfect example of how Liberal theology is the natural logical outworking of Arminian theology. Libertarian freedom is the sacred idol. It must be preserved at all costs. So God ends up being the tortured victim of all kinds of wild speculations.

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.

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.

[James K]

This conversation is a perfect example of how Liberal theology is the natural logical outworking of Arminian theology. Libertarian freedom is the sacred idol. It must be preserved at all costs. So God ends up being the tortured victim of all kinds of wild speculations.

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.

Furthermore, the logical problems that exist have nothing to do with God or contradictions in Scripture. Neither do they have anything to do with logic. The logical problems are with us and our finite understanding of the intrumentality of the case. How did God pull this off? We know He did it without forcing or tempting Adam to sin. We know He did it without surrending control or compromising sovereignty. But we know He did it. We just don’t quite understand how. And that is not the problem of logic, revelation or God. It is the problem of finite, limited understanding that often seems to demand more of God than He is very frequently unwilling to give. Humility is the way out. Humility and faithfulness!

[CharlesChurchill] 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.

No, I am not saying this.

[James K] Mostly I have been interacting with compatibilism beliefs. I would like to ask the following of those who hold to that belief:

1. Does permission factor at all in your beliefs? If yes, is it because God decreed that He would be permissible?

2. Since nothing happens except by decree, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God “passes over” the nonelect based on their own wickedness? It gives the impression of conditional reprobation.

3. Do you agree with the following quote of Calvin where he says compatabilism is foolish:

It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not by His will, but merely by His permission. Of course, so far as they are evils… I admit they are not pleasing to God. But it is quite a frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, which Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.

taken from Calvin’s “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God.

Before I can answer your question, you will need to define for me, as technical as you can, what you mean by permit. For it is most often that case that what the Calvinist intends with that word is not at all the same as what the Arminian intends.

Concerning (2), how could God base an eternal decree on future events? Decrees are eternal, based in God’s eternal unchanging will. This is how God acts. This would introduce contingency, would it not? God’s decree cannot be based on anything outside of Himself. While there is a logical order to the decrees, and there is a temporal manifestation of each one, the decee of God, as I understand is one event. The only intervals in the decrees is to be located in their execution according to Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, p. 312)

Concerning clarity around Calvin’s remarks, he deals with this at length in book I, chapter XVIII, section 1 of the Institutes,

Yet from these it is more than evident that they babble and talk absurdly who, in place of God’s providence, substitute bare permission - as it God sat in a watchtower awaiting chance events, and his judgments thus depended upon human will.

I would like you to answer my response to 1 and 2 and provide with your own explanation for how God acts. Specifically, does God act by decree? Does God decree all that happens? If He acts outside of decree, how?

[James K]

[CharlesChurchill] 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.

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).

Ed, in Calvin’s quote, which again I will repost, he argues that to think God is not the one who wills evil or that He is not the author is foolish. That is exactly what you and other compatibilists have been saying. The only way this applies to libertarian freedom is to say that evils began with man. Again, that is what you are saying. Either Helm doesn’t know Calvin as well as you think, or Calvin changed his mind.

It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not by His will, but merely by His permission. Of course, so far as they are evils… I admit they are not pleasing to God. But it is quite a frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, which Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.

We are to the stage where you seem to keep accusing me of things I don’t believe in in order to trump up your position. I am probably done unless you respond to post 65. I have answered all your questions and given the thoughts of other calvinists on your view. You are not dealing with what I am saying.

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

[James K] Ed, in Calvin’s quote, which again I will repost, he argues that to think God is not the one who wills evil or that He is not the author is foolish. That is exactly what you and other compatibilists have been saying. The only way this applies to libertarian freedom is to say that evils began with man. Again, that is what you are saying. Either Helm doesn’t know Calvin as well as you think, or Calvin changed his mind.

It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not by His will, but merely by His permission. Of course, so far as they are evils… I admit they are not pleasing to God. But it is quite a frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, which Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.

We are to the stage where you seem to keep accusing me of things I don’t believe in in order to trump up your position. I am probably done unless you respond to post 65. I have answered all your questions and given the thoughts of other calvinists on your view. You are not dealing with what I am saying.

I just responded to post 65. It seems your only agument for incoherence in compatiblism is that “it has to be inconsistence because I disagree with it.” That is not an argument James. In showing how compatibilism fails, you should attempt to show how your view ????? does not fail. I put questions marks because I have no idea what you believe. I only know what you do not believe. That is such an easy position to argue from and I am at the end of it.

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.

I wish that I had noticed this discussion sooner (haven’t looked into the theology section for some time). This is the kind of stuff that is a hobby of mine. I hope to contribute something sooner or later, but right now other things are too pressing. I’ll leave with this simple passing comment on causality.

No one denies God’s causal connection to creation’s beginning in the Christian realm. However, once creation takes place, then there is disagreement. Since no one denies creation, then it is without protestation that creation’s beginning is “dependent” upon God for its beginning. The deist makes this the only point at which God is in the picture; he assumes the “independence” or “self-sufficiency” of creation from that point. Causality functions in the realm of a self-sufficient universe. Many continue with this idea (of a self-sufficient creation), but they see in Scripture something different and agree that God is much more involved than at just merely the beginning. However, while God is involved in a much greater sense (Carson calls this a “God of the gaps” view; and Richard Dawkins hammers this view in The God Delusion), the assumption is still in place. Creation is self-sufficient; it is autonomous; it is independent. It really doesn’t need God in order to exist. I would suggest that this assumption is Biblically false. God’s word does not hide the fact that creation is not only completely dependent upon God for its beginning, but it is also completely dependent upon God for its moment-by-moment existence. This quick “post and run” will end with a few Scriptures that support the above point: namely, that creation is not autonomous.

Acts 17:24-25 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Colossians 1:16-17 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

No one will debate God’s causal connection to “creation” in the beginning, but many have problems with God’s causal connections later. If these verses (and many others) declare a causality where all of creation needs God as its Sustainer, then it does appear that people’s problem with causality is actually a problem with God’s word. The question can be narrowed. Is man’s will autonomous? Is it dependent upon God for its moment-by-moment existence? Is the will caused to continue to exist? How then can the freedom of the libertarian view be maintained? How then can the view of responsibility, that libertarian freedom uses (especially to critique compatibilism), be maintained?

This posting is all that I have time for, and I will not respond again for several days (probably). Thanks for reading this. Feel free to disagree, but then by all means SHOW how the Scripture verses quoted above do not demonstrate the point explained above. Please make the actual meaning of Scripture primary in the response. Thanks.

[James K] 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.

Ed, thanks for the discussion, you are trying to be more consistent than most compatibilists. I respect that. I hope you have been edified.

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

[Jay C.] 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?

I’m still not willing to accept your notion that Calvinism affirms that God forces mankind to act in a specific way. Mankind acts freely within the construct’s of their nature. Since all men have a sinful nature until they become a new creature in Christ, they will freely act in that nature.

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

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

[Jay C.] God created Adam as a free moral agent, with the ability to choose both for good or evil. When Eve sinned, she offered the fruit of the tree to Adam, who willingly took the fruit and ate (Gen. 3:6). God knew that Adam would be faced with that choice, and knowing that Adam would fully and willingly choose to sin, had decided on a plan to redeem mankind before that occurrence (Genesis 3:16, Matthew 25:34, Luke 11:50, Eph. 1:4, I Peter 1:20, Rev. 13:7-9), and put it into motion.

God does whatever he pleases, and does that with full and perfect knowledge of all things that both do and can occur. He also works within that realm (Gal. 4:4-7) to accomplish His plans.

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