Theories about Adam's fall

[ThomasT]

As Sproul has pointed out, Adam's fall is problematic for Calvinists (and also for Arminians, but for different reasons). The key problem is that Calvinism teaches that any person not acting from external force can only will to do what is in his nature to do. Which (apparently) means that Adam's nature must have contained some kind of sinful impulse.

There are at least three theories that attempt to solve this problem. (I suspect that there are a lot more than three, but these are the ones I'm acquainted with.)

1) The Deceit/Trespass theory. This says that Adam honestly believed he was doing God's will when he ate the fruit. His feeble but innocent mind wasn't capable of resisting the serpent's arguments, and he thought (again, innocently) that God was testing him by telling him not to eat the fruit, that God actually did want him to eat the fruit, and that God was using the test to see if Adam deserved to be elevated to God's company of glorified beings. Adam's act of disobedience was thus a mere trespass and not an actual sin (which comes from a sinful impulse, an impulse Adam didn't have), but God treated the trespass as a sin and punished Adam with the loss of innocence. (An example of a trespass that's not a sin: God tells a man not to eat broccoli on Tuesday. The man honestly thinks today is Wednesday when it's actually Tuesday, and he eats the broccoli with a perfectly clear conscience.)

2) The Shelf-Life theory: This says that God created Adam with a nature in which all the impulses were of proper size and in perfect proportion. Adam's self-love was very narrowly constrained. But like a candle that slowly burns down to the wick (Dabney's metaphor), Adam's nature eventually ran out of the store of grace it was created with. When the store of grace had been depleted, Adam's self-love grew monstrously out of balance and gave Adam the sinful impulse that led him to eat the fruit.

3) The Tragedy of the Creature theory: This says that by logical necessity, all creatures, not being the source of their own existence, must be flawed. Therefore Adam had to have been created with a sinful impulse of some kind.

The problem with the first theory is that a mere trespass isn't a real sin. The problem with the second is that God ends up being the reason Adam sinned, God having created Adam with a sinful impulse, even if it was one that wouldn't appear until some time had passed. The problem with the third theory is that while God has nothing to answer for here, God not being capable of creating a being truly free of a sinful nature, Adam has nothing to answer for, either, having been created with the impulse to sin.

I prefer Sproul's approach to the problem, which is to understand that not all problems allow for human solutions. But I'm wondering if anyone else has some thoughts to add?

 

[earl40]

I wonder if the answer to this problem could be that Adam before the fall was peccable and Jesus in His humanity was impeccable?

I write this with the belief Jesus in His humanity was impeccable which I know RC and other reformed teachers deny.

 

[ThomasT]

I wonder if the answer to this problem could be that Adam before the fall was peccable and Jesus in His humanity was impeccable?

I write this with the belief Jesus in His humanity was impeccable which I know RC and other reformed teachers deny.

I agree with you that Adam must have been peccable pre-Fall. The problem comes in when we try to explain how the Fall was Adam's fault. If we say, as I think we have to, this point being critical to Calvinism, that Adam's will wasn't in a state of libertarian freedom any more than ours is, that his will was a prisoner of his nature, then Adam's nature must have been created with a built-in impulse to sin. Otherwise sin wouldn't have been something Adam could have chosen.

And if Adam was created with a sinful impulse, his eventual choice to disobey God wasn't something he could have resisted. As Edwards is well known for pointing out, our nature is the master of our will, and to the extent that our nature contains conflicting impulses, the impulse we obey is the one that happens (through no choice of ours) to be strongest at any given moment.

So while we can explain the Fall by pointing to Adam's peccability, we can't use Adam's peccability to explain a) why Adam was peccable in the first place, or b) how any creature, not just Adam, could be peccable and yet free of all sinful impulse at the same time...

 

[Stope]

Can we speculate that the "reason" (whatever it might be) is/could be the same "reason" for Satan's fall?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[py3ak]

I agree with you that Adam must have been peccable pre-Fall. The problem comes in when we try to explain how the Fall was Adam's fault. If we say, as I think we have to, this point being critical to Calvinism, that Adam's will wasn't in a state of libertarian freedom any more than ours is, that his will was a prisoner of his nature, then Adam's nature must have been created with a built-in impulse to sin. Otherwise sin wouldn't have been something Adam could have chosen.

And if Adam was created with a sinful impulse, his eventual choice to disobey God wasn't something he could have resisted. As Edwards is well known for pointing out, our nature is the master of our will, and to the extent that our nature contains conflicting impulses, the impulse we obey is the one that happens (through no choice of ours) to be strongest at any given moment.

So while we can explain the Fall by pointing to Adam's peccability, we can't use Adam's peccability to explain a) why Adam was peccable in the first place, or b) how any creature, not just Adam, could be peccable and yet free of all sinful impulse at the same time...

Perhaps some quotes from Dennison's very useful Reformed Confessions volumes will come in handy for the discussion.

Large Emden Catechism:

Q. 82. How should I understand this?
R. This image of God was in Adam in the beginning, by virtue of which he was immortal, holy, wise, and lord of the entire world, and thus was endowed with the freedom and ability to either completely execute or disregard the commandment of God. However, the image of God in himself and in all of us he so destroyed by his sin, that henceforth, all offerings intended for goodness were utterly destroyed both in himself and in all of us. (Eph. 4; Gen. 2; Ps. 8; Ecclesiasticus 15; Gen. 3; 1 Cor. 15)

Hungarian Confession of Faith (Debrecen Synod, 1567)

The Causes of Sin
Christ says that Satan and his lies are the cause of all sin. Satan is a murderer too, i.e., he is the cause of death. Sin came in through man’s disobedience and death on account of sin (Rom. 5– 7). We therefore say that the cause of sin lies not in not seeing God alive, nor in being created for freedom, nor in the fact that God allowed the angels and Adam also to fall and did not draw them back, but let them fall into sin. We also say that neither the angels nor Adam fell because of God’s counsel or will, nor His decree and compulsion, but by their free will (Gen. 2– 3). The fact that God was prescient, that He knew that Adam would fall because of Satan, is not the cause of sin. “I knew, I saw beforehand, that you would be disobedient, would not obey Me, and I called you subject to the law for your future offenses, and your sins have destroyed you” (Isa. 48). “Adam, whose sin is it that you are naked?” (Gen. 3: 11). “Certainly not Mine, but yours, because you have eaten from the forbidden tree.” Neither Adam nor Eve lay their sins on God, but on Satan; Adam does on Eve and Eve on the tempter (Gen. 3: 12– 13).

Sandomierz Consensus
IX. On Free Will, and on the Power or Strength of Each Person
Because this matter has always caused much disagreement and discussion among the doctors in the church universal, we maintain that it is a necessary teaching that everyone diligently consider the threefold state, or situation and condition, of human nature. First, one must consider what the human being was like before the fall, that is, perfect, righteous, and possessing a free will, able to remain in goodness if he had wanted to, but also able to turn to evil, as he did, and in this way, by his free will, he became familiar with sin and death, not only for himself but also for all his descendants. Subsequently, it is necessary to see what the human being was and is like after the fall. Indeed, God did not take away his intellect, did not remove the freedom to desire, nor did He change him into stone or wood, but all these original gifts with which a human being was created in the image of God were so changed and corrupted by original sin that a human being no longer has perfect control and ability in himself, as our father Adam had before the fall, because the natural mind is darkened, and human will has changed from being free to being a slave because it serves and is subjected to sin, freely and without any compulsion. The will always has the inherent freedom in it that from among two things, it wills and chooses the one it desires. Therefore, a human being is freely perfect and desirous toward evil and fleshly desires, without feeling any compulsion in himself, neither from God nor from the devil. However, it often happens that God is pleased to halt things that a human being had already planned and begun, and yet He leaves in a human being the ability to choose freely and commence such evil deeds, even though God, by His omnipotence, does not allow them to reach their result or end. We have a clear example of this in the matter of Joseph’s brothers, who had freely intended to wipe him away from the face of the earth, yet this did not come to fruition, because God through other means thwarted their endeavor.

 

[earl40]

I wonder if the answer to this problem could be that Adam before the fall was peccable and Jesus in His humanity was impeccable?

I write this with the belief Jesus in His humanity was impeccable which I know RC and other reformed teachers deny.

I agree with you that Adam must have been peccable pre-Fall. The problem comes in when we try to explain how the Fall was Adam's fault. If we say, as I think we have to, this point being critical to Calvinism, that Adam's will wasn't in a state of libertarian freedom any more than ours is, that his will was a prisoner of his nature, then Adam's nature must have been created with a built-in impulse to sin. Otherwise sin wouldn't have been something Adam could have chosen.

And if Adam was created with a sinful impulse, his eventual choice to disobey God wasn't something he could have resisted. As Edwards is well known for pointing out, our nature is the master of our will, and to the extent that our nature contains conflicting impulses, the impulse we obey is the one that happens (through no choice of ours) to be strongest at any given moment.

So while we can explain the Fall by pointing to Adam's peccability, we can't use Adam's peccability to explain a) why Adam was peccable in the first place, or b) how any creature, not just Adam, could be peccable and yet free of all sinful impulse at the same time...

Was the impulse or will to eat the fruit sinful in of itself because scripture does say it "was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise"? Or was it only sinful after God told Adam not to eat?

I ask these questions because I do see a difference between Jesus and pre fall Adam in that Our Lord was "wiser" because Adam ate. Now I realize there is no inherent part of the fruit to do such (impart wisdom), but the experience of eating it does "make one wise" to what good and evil is through the experience of eating what God commanded man not to do.

 

[earl40]

Hungarian Confession of Faith (Debrecen Synod, 1567)

The Causes of Sin
Christ says that Satan and his lies are the cause of all sin. Satan is a murderer too, i.e., he is the cause of death. Sin came in through man’s disobedience and death on account of sin (Rom. 5– 7). We therefore say that the cause of sin lies not in not seeing God alive, nor in being created for freedom, nor in the fact that God allowed the angels and Adam also to fall and did not draw them back, but let them fall into sin. We also say that neither the angels nor Adam fell because of God’s counsel or will, nor His decree and compulsion, but by their free will (Gen. 2– 3). The fact that God was prescient, that He knew that Adam would fall because of Satan, is not the cause of sin. “I knew, I saw beforehand, that you would be disobedient, would not obey Me, and I called you subject to the law for your future offenses, and your sins have destroyed you” (Isa. 48). “Adam, whose sin is it that you are naked?” (Gen. 3: 11). “Certainly not Mine, but yours, because you have eaten from the forbidden tree.” Neither Adam nor Eve lay their sins on God, but on Satan; Adam does on Eve and Eve on the tempter (Gen. 3: 12– 13).

Not sure about this. For Our Lord was The Lord of providence before during and after Adam's sin. I of course agree God did not "compel" but He did decree whatever sin came to pass.

 

[ThomasT]

Perhaps some quotes from Dennison's very useful Reformed Confessions volumes will come in handy for the discussion.

I agree that the Sandomierz Consensus seems to offer us a good starting point: ”[Adam was] perfect, righteous, and possessing a free will, able to remain in goodness if he had wanted to, but also able to turn to evil, as he did, and in this way, by his free will, he became familiar with sin and death…”

The question Sproul is asking is this: If we accept the Reformation doctrine on free will (and Sproul of course does), which is that free will in the libertarian sense is a pagan philosophical construct we categorically reject (meaning that the Sandomierz Consensus is using the term “free will” only to indicate that Adam’s will wasn’t in bondage to sin but that it was still in bondage to his nature), Adam could have sinned only if God had created in Adam a propensity for sin. No being, creature or creator, when not acting as an agent of an external force, can will to do anything that isn’t an expression of the being’s true nature.

But Sproul isn’t willing to accept (and I think he’s right) the conclusion that God made Adam with a sinful defect. So then how was it possible for Adam to have sinned?

Sproul said he’s spent years puzzling over this question and he’s no closer to an answer now than he was when the question first occurred to him. (Dabney said he was deeply troubled by the question as well.)

Is Sproul wrong about Adam not being created with a propensity to sin? And if he’s not wrong, and the Reformed understanding of the human will is correct (no one’s will, not even Adam's is ever free in the libertarian sense), how do we handle the resulting problem?

Is it possible – and here I’m merely speculating – that Adam lacked free agency at the moment he disobeyed God, but that God, acting within his divine prerogative as creator of Adam, treated Adam’s innocent trespass as a sin?

 

[py3ak]

Perhaps the place to start would be with Dr. Muller's notorious article on Jonathan Edwards' reception in the British Isles.

http://jestudies.yale.edu/index.php/journal/article/view/63

It is accessible at the above link if you login - creating a login is free and worthwhile.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Adam was mutable (able to choose what he thought was best). That means he had the ability to sin or not sin. God does not have the capacity to sin, though Christ's temptations were real. So, as William Perkins (I think rightly) points out, the Holy Spirit took his hand off him from upholding him in that mutable state, as with a broomstick. The Holy Spirit upheld Adam in his righteousness for a time to only choose to do good. Then Let him go. As Perkins' says, let the broom handle go, and gravity takes over, it falls to the ground.

I don't think that having the ability to sin is sinful. God made Adam with the ability to chose one way or the other. It may be the theologian's use of the words that seem to make the issue more puzzling.

"treated Adam’s innocent trespass as a sin"

I don't see the fall in any respect an "innocent trespass;" that which sends multitudes to eternal hell under God's wrath.

I think it is safer to say that Adam had free will - the ability to choose what his heart desired at the moment. And that choice also rested on the mutability factor, and the abandonment of the Holy Spirit factor.

 

[TheOldCourse]

It seems like this is a bigger problem on an Edwardsian conception of free will which argues directly and deterministically from nature to choice than a more traditional Reformed view. Ruben's link above introduces some of the differences. Thomas Boston also points out that an immutably righteous nature is proper only to God Himself--man's original nature was righteous but mutably so. As Matthew suggested above, that mutable nature requires the gift of God for permanent maintenance. And if it is a gift, there is no sin in witholding it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think we're better off and safer leaving the mystery of the fall where it actually is: beyond our scrying curiosity.

I think even Dabney (who was loath to push an investigation past the limits of revelation, as in the lapsarian question) probably goes too far with his candle analogy, just as I am inclined to think Perkins' broomstick is too much. When we Protestants start talking about God removing a particular gift, it starts to sound similar to the Roman doctrine of the donum superadditum, or that special measure of grace that kept Adam righteous and holy. We want nothing to do with that.

(see quote from Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, at https://amfortress.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/donum-superadditum-donum-concreatum/ )

Adam's nature was mutable, so sin fell within the capacity of it, but not due to any necessity of the nature. The Confession summarizes the whole of our doctrine, and leaves the mystery alone.

WCF ch.4, Of Creation

4:2 After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female (Gen.1:27), with reasonable and immortal souls (Gen.2:7; Ecc.12:7; Mt.10:28; Lk.23:43), endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image (Gen.1:26; Eph.4:24; Col.3:10); having the law of God written in their hearts (Rom.2:14-15), and power to fulfil it (Ecc.7:29); and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change (Gen.3:6; Ecc.7:29). Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God (Gen.2:17; Gen.3:8-11,23), and had dominion over the creatures (Gen.1:26,28).​

WCF ch.5, Of Providence

5:4 The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men (2Sam.16:10; 24:1; 1Ki.22:22-23; 1Chr.10:4,13,14; 21:1; Act.2:23; 4:27-28; Rom.11:32-34); and that not by a bare permission (Act.14:16), but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding (2Ki.19:29; Ps.76:10), and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends (Gen.1:20; Is.10:6-7; 10:12); yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither, is nor can be, the author or approver of sin (Ps.50:21; Jas.1:13,14,17; 1Jn.2:16).​

WCF ch.6, Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof

6:1 Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit (Gen.3:13; 2Cor.11:3). This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory (Rom.11:32)​

Man was in a covenant of works prior to the fall. He had the power to fulfill it. The fall was inevitable, being ordained by God (not just "bound to happen" by the law of averages). And yet God is not in the least blameworthy for permitting the fall, for he is bringing about the greatest possible good it and so magnifying his mercy and his justice. The fall was necessary, not intrinsically, but for the completion of this incomparable design of the unfathomable wisdom of God.

How God brought it about is to us purely speculative. But he is not answerable to us, or to any higher standard of right-conduct than his own righteous and holy will.

 

[ThomasT]

Adam was mutable (able to choose what he thought was best). That means he had the ability to sin or not sin. God does not have the capacity to sin, though Christ's temptations were real. So, as William Perkins (I think rightly) points out, the Holy Spirit took his hand off him from upholding him in that mutable state, as with a broomstick. The Holy Spirit upheld Adam in his righteousness for a time to only choose to do good. Then Let him go. As Perkins' says, let the broom handle go, and gravity takes over, it falls to the ground.

I don't think that having the ability to sin is sinful. God made Adam with the ability to chose one way or the other. It may be the theologian's use of the words that seem to make the issue more puzzling.

"treated Adam’s innocent trespass as a sin"

I don't see the fall in any respect an "innocent trespass;" that which sends multitudes to eternal hell under God's wrath.

I think it is safer to say that Adam had free will - the ability to choose what his heart desired at the moment. And that choice also rested on the mutability factor, and the abandonment of the Holy Spirit factor.

We agree that the ability to sin isn’t a sin. What Sproul is saying is that the ability to sin is possible only for a being with sinful inclinations. The reason God can’t sin is that that there are no sinful inclinations in his nature. Only beings with sinful inclinations can sin.

Now if Adam had an inclination to sin, that inclination must have been created by God. Adam was no more the source of his natural inclinations than we are of ours.

Adam didn’t choose to disobey God for no reason – his disobedience was an expression of the disobedient nature God gave him. Without an inclination for rebellion and disobedience, rebellion and disobedience would have been impossible for Adam.

Sproul goes on to say that man cannot say “no” to his natural inclinations. If Adam had some sinful inclinations along with all the good ones, then Adam would have helplessly followed whatever inclination -- good or bad -- happened to be strongest in him at any given moment. Resisting our strongest natural inclination (whatever that may be at any given moment, and this will change from one moment to the next) is possible only with libertarian free will, the existence of which I assume we all reject.

You seem to be saying something very similar. You wrote: “I think it is safer to say that Adam had free will - the ability to choose what his heart desired at the moment.” But isn’t that exactly what we all have the power to do? Isn’t the word “heart” simply a metaphor for “natural inclination”? Having the ability to choose what our nature wants is mere free agency -- it isn't free will...

 

[py3ak]

The Confession of the Heidelberg Theologians is particularly full:

5. Concerning the fall of angels and men; and concerning hereditary sin. We also believe that even though God did initially create angels and men holy and good, and that He especially created man in His image and for blessed immortality, they— the angels for the largest part and both original human beings— fell away from God their Creator not long after having been created. By virtue of this fall, they not only have brought upon themselves the wrath of God, but have also contracted a corruption of their nature, which is such that they no longer either desire or are capable of any good. The fallen angels, as a body, have all at once become subject to this corruption, whereas human beings inherit such corruption from the one to the other, along with the guilt of temporal and eternal death. This corruption of man is therefore called hereditary sin.

6. Concerning the cause of the fall. We believe furthermore that though the dreadful fall of both angels and men could not have transpired outside of God’s decree, and that He does not decree anything without purpose, the guilt of this fall can in no wise be attributed to Him. It must be observed that both angels and men were created in such a fashion that they were capable of exercising their free will toward good as well as evil.

7. We believe furthermore that as poor creatures we have no right to dispute with God why He created angels and men capable of falling, nor why He did not prevent such a fall— which He indeed could have done. He is the Lord, and His will is always right and good, even though we do not always understand this. The apostle Paul states that God has concluded all things under unbelief (Rom. 11: 32) or under sin (Gal. 3: 22) in order that He might be merciful to all (that is, that no one would be saved apart from the mercy of God). See also Romans 9: 22– 23: “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had before prepared unto glory.” We should reasonably leave it at that.

8. Concerning the condition of angels and men after the fall. We believe furthermore that fallen angels and men by their grievous fall did not thwart the omnipotent government of God. Instead, the one as well as the other are in the hand of God, and their wickedness cannot manifest itself in any other way than which God has decreed concerning them. NB: This article of faith is our greatest comfort on earth. For if wicked angels and men could do as they please, what refuge could we find from them?

9. Concerning the cause of sin after the fall. We believe furthermore that though God has decreed all the sins of angels and men, He also often uses their sinful works to accomplish His holy works (such as Absalom’s dreadful deeds for the chastisement of David, as well as the betrayal of Judas for the redemption of the human race, etc.). Moreover, though He often punishes sin with sin, and generally fully blinds and hardens those who with seeing eyes wish to be blind (which He did earlier to Pharaoh), nevertheless He Himself takes no pleasure in sin, and even less stimulates or compels anyone to that end. Rather, the actual cause of all committed sin is to be attributed solely to the free and uninhibited will of evil angels and men. 10. Concerning the punishment of the fall. We believe furthermore that God has condemned the fallen angels to eternal fire without there being any recourse to grace and mercy, thereby warning us that we should not take the wrath of God against sin lightly.​

 

[timfost]

Thanks, Bruce.

I would add that another problem with the "Tragedy of the Creature theory" seems to share some Gnostic tendencies.

Following C. Matthew McMahon's train of thought, there is nothing in this creation analogous to Adam prior to the fall. We have no idea what it means to be wholly upright, righteous and mutable. If we are going to understand how this works, we only have special revelation to go by. Since such revelation only describes the events without the mechanics, we are better off simply describing the events without inquiring into it any further.

On the bright side, by faith we are found in Christ, and therefore ingrafted into Him who is immutable. As believers, then, we are in a far superior place than Adam (pre-fall), even in this body of sin.

 

[MW]

I prefer Sproul's approach to the problem, which is to understand that not all problems allow for human solutions. But I'm wondering if anyone else has some thoughts to add?

My thought is that we should steer away from calling it a problem for Calvinists.

What does Calvinism teach? Simply what holy Scripture teaches -- that God in His sovereign good pleasure has chosen a people for Himself and permitted the fall for manifesting the glory of His grace and justice. If anyone has any objections to this revelation of divine glory he contends with the potter who made him. The Calvinist should leave it there. What point is there in seeking to justify God?

Now it may be that some Calvinists have complicated the issue by their particular theories of causation, volition, etc., but that is not "Calvinism." That is just some theologian who calls himself a Calvinist trying to justify God according to his own rational processes.

What are the facts of revelation so far as the fall is concerned? We have (1) man being made upright but natural, so as he is not yet confirmed in a state of righteousness or consummated with heavenly life, (2) man undergoing a state of probation and being left to the freedom of his own will, and (3) man being exposed to a subtle agent who was able to deal rationally with man and present him with a genuine temptation. These facts suffice to explain the essential elements involved in the fall. It does not need to be pressed any farther.

 

[Kurt Steele]

Did Adam "really" have a choice or was this the sovereign plan of God from eternity past to bring Him the most glory? God created Adam in innocence and as Matthew wrote Adam was mutable. Jesus was and is Immutable. This is a very tough issue for a human mind to comprehend/

 

[MW]

Did Adam "really" have a choice or was this the sovereign plan of God from eternity past to bring Him the most glory?

That is known as a false dilemma. Adam's genuine choice and God's sovereign plan are both true.

 

[Kurt Steele]

Was there any chance for Adam to succeed in innocence?

 

[MW]

Was there any chance for Adam to succeed in innocence?

Given all the conditions necessary for making free choice, Yes. Divine sovereignty does not take away the contingency of second causes.

 

[Justified]

Did Adam "really" have a choice or was this the sovereign plan of God from eternity past to bring Him the most glory?

That is known as a false dilemma. Adam's genuine choice and God's sovereign plan are both true.

Rev. Winzer, do you think human beings have freedom of contradicting/contrariety?

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, do you think human beings have freedom of contradicting/contrariety?

If contrariety is explained in accord with other dynamics of human existence which constrain choice, then I would answer yes. If bare contrariety is meant, the answer would be no, because then the person could choose not to choose, which is absurd.

 

[Justified]

Rev. Winzer, do you think human beings have freedom of contradicting/contrariety?

If contrariety is explained in accord with other dynamics of human existence which constrain choice, then I would answer yes. If bare contrariety is meant, the answer would be no, because then the person could choose not to choose, which is absurd.

Do recommend any good classic Reformed authors on the issue? I find most Reformed theologians today are determinists of sorts of the Edwardsian type.

 

[MW]

Do recommend any good classic Reformed authors on the issue? I find most Reformed theologians today are determinists of sorts of the Edwardsian type.

Perhaps the best single volume I could recommend is Reformed Thought on Freedom, ed. van Asselt. Besides providing a case for synchronic contingency, it helps to show the different taxonomies which affect discussion.

In the Scots' Presbyterian tradition, Adam Gib on Liberty and Necessity in his Sacred Contemplations is well worth studying.

Although it is shown that Edwards steered an unique course so far as necessarian ideas are concerned, he is still useful on the freedom of the will in general. He followed the older psychology of seeing the will as an inclination to apparent good. Apart from this basic definition it is impossible to lay rational constraints on the will and see human choice as meaningful. The treatise is still valuable in this regard.

 

[ThomasT]

It must be observed that both angels and men were created in such a fashion that they were capable of exercising their free will toward good as well as evil.

Which means (at least according to the limits of our human logic) that pre-fallen angels and men had a nature that contained by both good and evil impulses.

Following is a link, for those who are interested, in a fascinating lecture ("What Is Evil & Where Did It Come From?") Sproul delivered on the problem we're discussing. It covers a lot of territory but treats at length the question of how a being like Adam could have sinned. Sproul admits that he has no way of answering the question without rejecting tenets of Reformed doctrine...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ir6pKEV0RQ

 

[ThomasT]

My thought is that we should steer away from calling it a problem for Calvinists.

How sin entered the world through Adam poses problems that certainly aren't unique to Calvinists. All Christians have incomplete theodicies, but in different ways. Calling the fall a problem for Calvinism is something I've done here (following the lead of people like Sproul and Dabney) simply because I don't think we're concerned -- for the moment -- about the problems Adam raises for Arminians and other Christians who don't accept Reformed doctrine.

 

[MW]

Which means (at least according to the limits of our human logic) that pre-fallen angels and men had a nature that contained by both good and evil impulses.

An evil impulse is evil since the law of God is spiritual and applies to the heart. If one affirms that man was created with evil impulses he must deny that man was created innocent and upright.

 

[MW]

How sin entered the world through Adam poses problems that certainly aren't unique to Calvinists. All Christians have incomplete theodicies, but in different ways. Calling the fall a problem for Calvinism is something I've done here (following the lead of people like Sproul and Dabney) simply because I don't think we're concerned -- for the moment -- about the problems Adam raises for Arminians and other Christians who don't accept Reformed doctrine.

Adam's fall doesn't raise a problem for Calvinism. Without Calvinism we could not explain the dynamics of divine sovereignty and human responsibility without having recourse to a dualist philosophy. Calvinism answers the problems raised by reason.

 

[ThomasT]

Which means (at least according to the limits of our human logic) that pre-fallen angels and men had a nature that contained by both good and evil impulses.

An evil impulse is evil since the law of God is spiritual and applies to the heart. If one affirms that man was created with evil impulses he must deny that man was created innocent and upright.

And yet without an evil impulse Adam couldn't have willed to sin, Adam's will not being free in the libertarian sense.

 

[MW]

And yet without an evil impulse Adam couldn't have willed to sin, Adam's will not being free in the libertarian sense.

That is your reason creating conditions in order to meet your criteria for rational explanation. Adam was made upright. He had no evil impulses.