Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
William

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Recommended Posts

by R.C. Sproul

 

Shortly after the Reformation began, in the first few years after Martin Luther posted the Ninety-Five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg, he issued some short booklets on a variety of subjects. One of the most provocative was titled The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In this book Luther was looking back to that period of Old Testament history when Jerusalem was destroyed by the invading armies of Babylon and the elite of the people were carried off into captivity. Luther in the sixteenth century took the image of the historic Babylonian captivity and reapplied it to his era and talked about the new Babylonian captivity of the Church. He was speaking of Rome as the modern Babylon that held the Gospel hostage with its rejection of the biblical understanding of justification. You can understand how fierce the controversy was, how polemical this title would be in that period by saying that the Church had not simply erred or strayed, but had fallen — that it’s actually now Babylonian; it is now in pagan captivity.

 

I’ve often wondered if Luther were alive today and came to our culture and looked, not at the liberal church community, but at evangelical churches, what would he have to say? Of course I can’t answer that question with any kind of definitive authority, but my guess is this: If Martin Luther lived today and picked up his pen to write, the book he would write in our time would be entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church. Luther saw the doctrine of justification as fueled by a deeper theological problem. He writes about this extensively in The Bondage of the Will. When we look at the Reformation and we see the solas of the Reformation — sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola gratia — Luther was convinced that the real issue of the Reformation was the issue of grace; and that underlying the doctrine of solo fide, justification by faith alone, was the prior commitment to sola gratia, the concept of justification by grace alone.

 

In the Fleming Revell edition of The Bondage of the Will, the translators, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, included a somewhat provocative historical and theological introduction to the book itself. This is from the end of that introduction:

 

These things need to be pondered by Protestants today. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognised by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimise and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters?1

 

Historically, it’s a simple matter of fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and all the leading Protestant theologians of the first epoch of the Reformation stood on precisely the same ground here. On other points they had their differences. In asserting the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them these doctrines were the very lifeblood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s works says this:

 

Whoever puts this book down without having realized that Evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain. The doctrine of free justification by faith alone, which became the storm center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformers’ theology, but this is not accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed by Augustine and others, that the sinner’s entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only, and that the doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a more profound level still in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration.2

 

That is to say, that the faith that receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood until it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Do you hear the difference? Let me put it in simple terms. I heard an evangelist recently say, “If God takes a thousand steps to reach out to you for your redemption, still in the final analysis, you must take the decisive step to be saved.” Consider the statement that has been made by America’s most beloved and leading evangelical of the twentieth century, Billy Graham, who says with great passion, “God does ninety-nine percent of it but you still must do that last one percent.”

 

What Is Pelagianism?

 

Now, let’s return briefly to my title, “The Pelagian Captivity of the Church.” What are we talking about? Pelagius was a monk who lived in Britain in the fifth century. He was a contemporary of the greatest theologian of the first millennium of Church history if not of all time, Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. We have heard of St. Augustine, of his great works in theology, of his City of God, of his Confessions, and so on, which remain Christian classics.

 

Augustine, in addition to being a titanic theologian and a prodigious intellect, was also a man of deep spirituality and prayer. In one of his famous prayers, Augustine made a seemingly harmless and innocuous statement in the prayer to God in which he says: “O God, command what you wouldst, and grant what thou dost command.” Now, would that give you apoplexy — to hear a prayer like that? Well it certainly set Pelagius, this British monk, into orbit. When he heard that, he protested vociferously, even appealing to Rome to have this ghastly prayer censured from the pen of Augustine. Here’s why. He said, “Are you saying, Augustine, that God has the inherent right to command anything that he so desires from his creatures? Nobody is going to dispute that. God inherently, as the creator of heaven and earth, has the right to impose obligations on his creatures and say, ‘Thou shalt do this, and thou shalt not do that.’ ‘Command whatever thou would’ — it’s a perfectly legitimate prayer.”

 

It’s the second part of the prayer that Pelagius abhorred when Augustine said, “and grant what thou dost command.” He said, “What are you talking about? If God is just, if God is righteous and God is holy, and God commands of the creature to do something, certainly that creature must have the power within himself, the moral ability within himself, to perform it or God would never require it in the first place.” Now that makes sense, doesn’t it? What Pelagius was saying is that moral responsibility always and everywhere implies moral capability or, simply, moral ability. So why would we have to pray, “God grant me, give me the gift of being able to do what you command me to do”? Pelagius saw in this statement a shadow being cast over the integrity of God himself, who would hold people responsible for doing something they cannot do.

 

So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing. But once transgression entered and mankind became fallen, God’s law was not repealed nor did God adjust his holy requirements downward to accommodate the weakened, fallen condition of his creation. God did punish his creation by visiting upon them the judgment of original sin, so that everyone after Adam and Eve who was born into this world was born already dead in sin. Original sin is not the first sin. It’s the result of the first sin; it refers to our inherent corruption, by which we are born in sin, and in sin did our mothers conceive us. We are not born in a neutral state of innocence, but we are born in a sinful, fallen condition. Virtually every church in the historic World Council of Churches at some point in their history and in their creedal development articulates some doctrine of original sin. So clear is that to the biblical revelation that it would take a repudiation of the biblical view of mankind to deny original sin altogether.

 

This is precisely what was at issue in the battle between Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth century. Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?

 

It helps, it makes it more facile, it makes it easier, but you don’t have to have it. You can be perfect without it. Pelagius further stated that it is not only theoretically possible for some folks to live a perfect life without any assistance from divine grace, but there are in fact people who do it. Augustine said, “No, no, no, no . . . we are infected by sin by nature, to the very depths and core of our being — so much so that no human being has the moral power to incline himself to cooperate with the grace of God. The human will, as a result of original sin, still has the power to choose, but it is in bondage to its evil desires and inclinations. The condition of fallen humanity is one that Augustine would describe as the inability to not sin. In simple English, what Augustine was saying is that in the Fall, man loses his moral ability to do the things of God and he is held captive by his own evil inclinations.

 

In the fifth century the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange, and it was condemned again at the Council of Florence, the Council of Carthage, and also, ironically, at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century in the first three anathemas of the Canons of the Sixth Session. So, consistently throughout Church history, the Church has roundly and soundly condemned Pelagianism — because Pelagianism denies the fallenness of our nature; it denies the doctrine of original sin.

 

Now what is called semi-Pelagianism, as the prefix “semi” suggests, was a somewhat middle ground between full-orbed Augustinianism and full-orbed Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism said this: yes, there was a fall; yes, there is such a thing as original sin; yes, the constituent nature of humanity has been changed by this state of corruption and all parts of our humanity have been significantly weakened by the fall, so much so that without the assistance of divine grace nobody can possibly be redeemed, so that grace is not only helpful but it’s absolutely necessary for salvation. While we are so fallen that we can’t be saved without grace, we are not so fallen that we don’t have the ability to accept or reject the grace when it’s offered to us. The will is weakened but is not enslaved. There remains in the core of our being an island of righteousness that remains untouched by the fall. It’s out of that little island of righteousness, that little parcel of goodness that is still intact in the soul or in the will that is the determinative difference between heaven and hell. It’s that little island that must be exercised when God does his thousand steps of reaching out to us, but in the final analysis it’s that one step that we take that determines whether we go to heaven or hell — whether we exercise that little righteousness that is in the core of our being or whether we don’t. That little island Augustine wouldn’t even recognize as an atoll in the South Pacific. He said it’s a mythical island, that the will is enslaved, and that man is dead in his sin and trespasses.

 

Ironically, the Church condemned semi-Pelagianism as vehemently as it had condemned original Pelagianism. Yet by the time you get to the sixteenth century and you read the Catholic understanding of what happens in salvation the Church basically repudiated what Augustine taught and Aquinas taught as well. The Church concluded that there still remains this freedom that is intact in the human will and that man must cooperate with — and assent to — the prevenient grace that is offered to them by God. If we exercise that will, if we exercise a cooperation with whatever powers we have left, we will be saved. And so in the sixteenth century the Church reembraced semi-Pelagianism.

 

At the time of the Reformation, all the reformers agreed on one point: the moral inability of fallen human beings to incline themselves to the things of God; that all people, in order to be saved, are totally dependent, not ninety-nine percent, but one hundred percent dependent upon the monergistic work of regeneration in order to come to faith, and that faith itself is a gift of God. It’s not that we are offered salvation and that we will be born again if we choose to believe. But we can’t even believe until God in his grace and in his mercy first changes the disposition of our souls through his sovereign work of regeneration. In other words, what the reformers all agreed with was, unless a man is born again, he can’t even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it. Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father” — that the necessary condition for anybody’s faith and anybody’s salvation is regeneration.

 

Evangelicals and Faith

 

Modern Evangelicalism almost uniformly and universally teaches that in order for a person to be born again, he must first exercise faith. You have to choose to be born again. Isn’t that what you hear? In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of “professing evangelical Christians” in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions — or let me say it negatively — neither of these positions is semi-Pelagian. They’re both Pelagian. To say that we’re basically good is the Pelagian view. I would be willing to assume that in at least thirty percent of the people who are reading this issue, and probably more, if we really examine their thinking in depth, we would find hearts that are beating Pelagianism. We’re overwhelmed with it. We’re surrounded by it. We’re immersed in it. We hear it every day. We hear it every day in the secular culture. And not only do we hear it every day in the secular culture, we hear it every day on Christian television and on Christian radio.

 

In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America’s most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they’re correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings and I say, “I don’t see how any Christian person could write this.” And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism.

 

The Island of Righteousness

 

One thing is clear: that you can be purely Pelagian and be completely welcome in the evangelical movement today. It’s not simply that the camel sticks his nose into the tent; he doesn’t just come in the tent — he kicks the owner of the tent out. Modern Evangelicalism today looks with suspicion at Reformed theology, which has become sort of the third-class citizen of Evangelicalism. Now you say, “Wait a minute, R. C. Let’s not tar everybody with the extreme brush of Pelagianism, because, after all, Billy Graham and the rest of these people are saying there was a Fall; you’ve got to have grace; there is such a thing as original sin; and semi-Pelagians do not agree with Pelagius’ facile and sanguine view of unfallen human nature.” And that’s true. No question about it. But it’s that little island of righteousness where man still has the ability, in and of himself, to turn, to change, to incline, to dispose, to embrace the offer of grace that reveals why historically semi-Pelagianism is not called semi-Augustinianism, but semi-Pelagianism.

 

I heard an evangelist use two analogies to describe what happens in our redemption. He said sin has such a strong hold on us, a stranglehold, that it’s like a person who can’t swim, who falls overboard in a raging sea, and he’s going under for the third time and only the tops of his fingers are still above the water; and unless someone intervenes to rescue him, he has no hope of survival, his death is certain. And unless God throws him a life preserver, he can’t possibly be rescued. And not only must God throw him a life preserver in the general vicinity of where he is, but that life preserver has to hit him right where his fingers are still extended out of the water, and hit him so that he can grasp hold of it. It has to be perfectly pitched. But still that man will drown unless he takes his fingers and curls them around the life preserver and God will rescue him. But unless that tiny little human action is done, he will surely perish.

 

The other analogy is this: A man is desperately ill, sick unto death, lying in his hospital bed with a disease that is fatal. There is no way he can be cured unless somebody from outside comes up with a cure, a medicine that will take care of this fatal disease. And God has the cure and walks into the room with the medicine. But the man is so weak he can’t even help himself to the medicine; God has to pour it on the spoon. The man is so sick he’s almost comatose. He can’t even open his mouth, and God has to lean over and open up his mouth for him. God has to bring the spoon to the man’s lips, but the man still has to swallow it.

 

Now, if we’re going to use analogies, let’s be accurate. The man isn’t going under for the third time; he is stone cold dead at the bottom of the ocean. That’s where you once were when you were dead in sin and trespasses and walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air. And while you were dead hath God quickened you together with Christ. God dove to the bottom of the sea and took that drowned corpse and breathed into it the breath of his life and raised you from the dead. And it’s not that you were dying in a hospital bed of a certain illness, but rather, when you were born you were born D.O.A. That’s what the Bible says: that we are morally stillborn.

 

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will. If you mean by free will the ability for fallen human beings to incline themselves and exercise that will to choose the things of God without the prior monergistic work of regeneration then, said Calvin, free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to a human being.

 

The semi-Pelagian doctrine of free will prevalent in the evangelical world today is a pagan view that denies the captivity of the human heart to sin. It underestimates the stranglehold that sin has upon us.

 

None of us wants to see things as bad as they really are. The biblical doctrine of human corruption is grim. We don’t hear the Apostle Paul say, “You know, it’s sad that we have such a thing as sin in the world; nobody’s perfect. But be of good cheer. We’re basically good.” Do you see that even a cursory reading of Scripture denies this?

 

Now back to Luther. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received? Or is it a condition of justification which is left to us to fulfill? Is your faith a work? Is it the one work that God leaves for you to do? I had a discussion with some folks in Grand Rapids, Michigan, recently. I was speaking on sola gratia, and one fellow was upset.

 

He said, “Are you trying to tell me that in the final analysis it’s God who either does or doesn’t sovereignly regenerate a heart?”

 

And I said, “Yes;” and he was very upset about that. I said, “Let me ask you this: are you a Christian?”

 

He said, “Yes.”

 

I said, “Do you have friends who aren’t Christians?”

 

He said, “Well, of course.”

 

I said, “Why are you a Christian and your friends aren’t? Is it because you’re more righteous than they are?” He wasn’t stupid. He wasn’t going to say, “Of course it’s because I’m more righteous. I did the right thing and my friend didn’t.” He knew where I was going with that question.

 

And he said, “Oh, no, no, no.”

 

I said, “Tell me why. Is it because you are smarter than your friend?”

 

And he said, “No.”

 

But he would not agree that the final, decisive issue was the grace of God. He wouldn’t come to that. And after we discussed this for fifteen minutes, he said, “OK! I’ll say it. I’m a Christian because I did the right thing, I made the right response, and my friend didn’t.”

 

What was this person trusting in for his salvation? Not in his works in general, but in the one work that he performed. And he was a Protestant, an evangelical. But his view of salvation was no different from the Roman view.

 

God’s Sovereignty in Salvation

 

This is the issue: Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it in our own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanity’s utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder then that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being, in principle, both a return to Rome because, in effect, it turned faith into a meritorious work, and a betrayal of the Reformation because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the reformers’ thought. Arminianism was indeed, in Reformed eyes, a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. For to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle than to rely on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment.

 

And yet this view is the overwhelming majority report today in professing evangelical circles. And as long as semi-Pelagianism, which is simply a thinly veiled version of real Pelagianism at its core — as long as it prevails in the Church, I don’t know what’s going to happen. But I know, however, what will not happen: there will not be a new Reformation. Until we humble ourselves and understand that no man is an island and that no man has an island of righteousness, that we are utterly dependent upon the unmixed grace of God for our salvation, we will not begin to rest upon grace and rejoice in the greatness of God’s sovereignty, and we will not be rid of the pagan influence of humanism that exalts and puts man at the center of religion. Until that happens there will not be a new Reformation, because at the heart of Reformation teaching is the central place of the worship and gratitude given to God and God alone. Soli Deo gloria, to God alone be the glory.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be Martin Luther in today's pelagianistic churches...which covers a vast majority of the USA's churches...

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG0ZYsa8Rx0mlCSeWKFM97Az7dMr6ovf479EIX59YhA8X7flkl

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This would be Martin Luther in today's pelagianistic churches...which covers a vast majority of the USA's churches... images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG0ZYsa8Rx0mlCSeWKFM97Az7dMr6ovf479EIX59YhA8X7flkl

 

 

 

Most Pelagianistic churches under the guise of Protestant are like who's Augustine or Luther?

 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most Pelagianistic churches under the guise of Protestant are like whose Augustine or Luther?

 

 

 

God bless,

William

 

What I meant is that pic would be Luther today. Instead of nailing it to the RCC, he would be nailing it to those churches who hold to pelagianism and semi-pelagianism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed reading the part about God's sovereignty in salvation, in particular. This especially touched me. The whole piece is very good....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be fair to say that monergists are antinomians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said many a time here, Solo Die Gloria. To God alone be the glory. All things have always tended to have both their beginning and their ending in Him. In the end, it will all come back to give only Him the glory, for He is both the Alpha and the Omega of all.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the choice to receive Christ as Lord and Saviour rests with the natural man no one will ever be saved and Christ's death was and is null and void, but if it is God who chooses whom He will bestow salvation upon and adopt into His family, then Christ's death was for those whom He chose which is a predetermined amount of people, known as the elect.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William I so like it when you bring such excellent articles to the Forum. I copy them off and file them for future reference abd teaching material. So deep sincere thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing.

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will.

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

 

I respect the fact you read it all. It was a very long complected hard read. John Piper reads a lot like this. I can't stay attentive for very long and get lost is so many terns I am not at all acquainted with and by the time I look up all the theological terms, I have pretty much lost my place or interest. Whats wrong with using common theological terms? I last time I read Piper I promised never to buy one again. But I did and still do I need the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

 

I respect the fact you read it all. It was a very long complected hard read. John Piper reads a lot like this. I can't stay attentive for very long and get lost is so many terns I am not at all acquainted with and by the time I look up all the theological terms, I have pretty much lost my place or interest. Whats wrong with using common theological terms? I last time I read Piper I promised never to buy one again. But I did and still do I need the challenge.

True enough. On the other hand, it is nice to know what these theological brainiacs are yapping about ... and learning new words can be fun. I read 85% of the article.

 

Aside: I have a book by Johnathan Edwards. He is so brilliant that I have to struggle to read it. (LOL) Maybe Dr. Zeus should do commentaries (smile)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing.

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will.

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

I agree with Calvin's quote. You do understand what an autonomous or libertarian (free) will are? I think it very important to understand because the bible does express a type of free will which means without compulsion of law in making, for example, an offering. Calvinist do not argue against that kind of free will, but we reject autonomous or libertarian wills.

 

Another point of interest, if Adam and Eve had an autonomous will then why did Satan have to tempt them with it?

 

"Gen 3:5, when Satan, disguised as a serpent, said to Eve, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Here are the double lies being offered to Eve springing out of the same principle behind his botched coup attempt; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself." - https://www.christforums.org/forum/christian-community/reformed-theology/690-the-doctrine-of-autonomous-self-a-hidden-idolatry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah most evangelical and even Baptist churches (of which I am part of) hold to some form of free will. I am fairly unique in that I teach and preach the five points of Calvin as the true Biblical approach to these questions. I agree with Packer in a work he wwrote- that when we receive Christ, what we are actually doing is verbalizing what God has already done in our hearts.

 

Without doubt confession is a biblical requirement of salvation- but the elect will confess! And their faith (Eph 2:8-10) is a response to the grace of god at work in their heart!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing.

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will.

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

Respectfully, I feel you side stepped ALL my questions and verses.

 

I also think you have misinterpreted my post or we are talking past each other.

 

Regarding Adam and Eve's decision to eat the fruit ... I believe that they were created by God and that God's plan was that they would eat the fruit. I believe Adam and Eve has no option, that God plans everything and everything He plans come to pass including Adam and Eve eating the fruit.

Thus, Augustine's pelagian statement "God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing" is false. I offered many verses to substantiate my claim.

 

Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways! [perhaps Augustine would add the following to the verse: "except for Adam and Eve for that decision was left to a coin toss" ... hmmm...well, maybe not a coin toss as that contradicts (The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD) ... but you get the idea.

 

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing.

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will.

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

I was addressing this which you quoted, so I do apologize for side stepping what you wrote. To clarify:

 

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will.

 

About Calvin, I thought it was a interesting choice of words by Calvin, and why I ask anyone to really think about what Calvin wrote: "if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will."

 

Calvin is suggesting that nobody demonstrates true autonomy or chooses anything contrary to his/her nature. Thus why I went into autonomous or libertarian will.

 

I'll stop here to not derail any further.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing.

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will.

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

 

I know you and I are big proponents of sola scriptura. I quoted scripture and you quoted Calvin. Do you see a problem?

I'll add another question (though you didn't answer any of my previous questions; not that you are obligated to).

 

You stated, ""if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will." Aside: This definition is agreed to.

So, my question is about "First Cause" where First Cause is the "self-created ultimate source of all being". Do you contend that God is NOT the first cause of all things?

 

Thanks for indulging me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing.

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will.

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

I quoted scripture and you quoted Calvin. Do you see a problem?

 

The reason I posted what I had was because you quoted Calvin and I did not think you were understanding what he said rightly.

 

However, to answer your second question:

 

So, my question is about "First Cause" where First Cause is the "self-created ultimate source of all being". Do you contend that God is NOT the first cause of all things?

 

I believe God is the uncaused first cause. And I think, what you're hinting at on the subject matter is "supralapsarianism,"​ and "infralapsarianism": https://www.christforums.org/forum/christian-community/reformed-theology/1027-what-do-the-terms-supralapsarianism-%E2%80%8B-and-infralapsarianism-mean-and-does-the-bible-teach-one-or-the-other

 

I don't know if you're familiar with that theology but if not enjoy!

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing.

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will.

 

Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

As the article say: "Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father”". Apparently, no man departs from the Father unless it is Adam who can do things outside the will of God.

 

 

God's Sovereignty Over Man is Complete and without exception

 

· Daniel 5:23b who has in his control your very breath and all your ways!

 

· Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect

 

· Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand

 

· Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD, How then can anyone understand his own way?

 

· Jeremiah 10:23 the way of a man is not in himself, it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.

 

· Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

 

· Ephesians 1:11 predestined according to the purpose of him who works ALL things according to the counsel of his will

 

These are my questions (I know that even if I am correct, Augustine's superior mind would win the argument ... luckily, he not here *giggle* But, I believe scripture is on my side)

 

 

 

 

I believe God is the uncaused first cause.

So do I. I believe there are NO EXCEPTIONS. Augustine apparently thinks there is an exception when the article states "God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing". They weren't capable in my opinion. God had predetermined their fate. Do you believe God is first cause of ALL things and some things?

Aside: I vote supralapsarianism but I wasn't hinting at it ... . Under a supralapsarian scheme of the divine decrees, God ordained sin so that there would be elect sinners for Christ to redeem, and so that in the end God would be glorified in the accomplishment of such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good commentary. I take issue with the quotes above which is an quantitatively insignificant portion of the article. I usually (always?) come out battered and bruised when I disagree was Augustine and Calvin, but let's keep it interesting ... if nothing else you can smile at my ignorance.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God. If man is able to operate outside the will of God, I ask "where does this will come from"? Is it not God that created all things for His purpose alone? Does an all-wise God have no purpose/plan in many areas? To proceed without a complete plan does not seem all-wise. Is there a power outside of God's will and if so, what is it and who controls it? If someone is capable of doing something independent of God, how does God learn what they will do? If someone can do something independent of God's will, then God doesn't know what the person will do which implies God is not omniscient (or at least at one time He was until He found out what the future would be in these areas where man is independent of God.

 

@Fastfredy0,

 

I am going to rewind a bit. I have a couple of questions.

 

I say the statements are not true for the following reasons and scriptures:

It denies the sovereignty of God. It says Adam / Eve had "free will". It is ironic that these titans of reform should advocate that men are able to act outside the will of God.

 

I have no idea as to where you are gathering that any Reformed Titan suggested that Adam and Eve had an autonomous (free) will. I'm asking you to clarify because it appears to me that you built on a false statement.

 

These two quotes are what you were addressing. I find it difficult to know whether you took them in context. Just making sure so I am providing the context:

 

First Augustine:

 

So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing. But once transgression entered and mankind became fallen, God’s law was not repealed nor did God adjust his holy requirements downward to accommodate the weakened, fallen condition of his creation. God did punish his creation by visiting upon them the judgment of original sin, so that everyone after Adam and Eve who was born into this world was born already dead in sin. Original sin is not the first sin. It’s the result of the first sin; it refers to our inherent corruption, by which we are born in sin, and in sin did our mothers conceive us. We are not born in a neutral state of innocence, but we are born in a sinful, fallen condition. Virtually every church in the historic World Council of Churches at some point in their history and in their creedal development articulates some doctrine of original sin. So clear is that to the biblical revelation that it would take a repudiation of the biblical view of mankind to deny original sin altogether.

 

"God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing." Seems you take issue with this, and I think I can understand why.

 

And then Calvin:

 

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will. If you mean by free will the ability for fallen human beings to incline themselves and exercise that will to choose the things of God without the prior monergistic work of regeneration then, said Calvin, free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to a human being.

 

My initial response questioned your definition of free will, because I reject mankind having autonomous or libertarian wills. I'll have to ask you to provide a source of any Reformed "titans" suggesting that Adam and Eve had an autonomous will.

 

Now I have a couple of questions for you on the subject of Adam and Eve.

 

When God made Adam and Eve He said that it was good. So, Adam was good.

  • "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them . . . And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." Gen. 1:27, 31.

The simple question I have was in what sense was Adam "good"? And had Adam the "ability" to not sin and carry out the commandment to not eat of the fruit thereof? I mean Augustine says at this point Adam and Eve were not commanded anything that they could not of done, after all, they lacked original sin at this point or a sin nature. Correct me if you think I am wrong? But I do not see how corruption and/or sin marred the image of God at this point?

 

Personally, I think Satan was an external influence of greater force than Adam's and/or Eve's ability to reject sin. That is, Adam was not tempted by a "sin nature" but rather by an outside influence as we are tempted by Satan and the World around us. I see no evidence that Adam and Eve were divine and lacked the ability to sin, and I see nothing said about Adam and Eve having a sin nature but were at this point simply good.

 

As to why Satan was even there, of course, I acknowledge Genesis 3:1:

  • Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

Obviously, Satan is a master craftsman at his trade and quite capable of accomplishing his objective. Was he put in the garden intentionally? That is to tempt Adam and Eve?

 

Of course I believe Satan was in the garden intentionally, he was put there because God not only permitted Satan to be there but because He had a plan which is found in Genesis 3:15:

  • I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

The offspring of the woman will crush Satan.

  • Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
  • Hebrews 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

One aspect of God's plan in my view was for the crushing of Satan upon the cross by Christ Jesus.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@William Gee. This is getting complex. I am going to skip the comment of Calvin I alluded to, to clear the air a little.

 

The question to be addressed: I'll have to ask you to provide a source of any Reformed "titans" suggesting that Adam and Eve had an autonomous will.

My answer: Augustine implies that Adam had an autonomous will when he says “God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing.” I object to this statement because it gives the impression that Adam was capable of not sinning in regards to the eating of the tree of Knowledge. To be capable of (1) sinning or (2) not sinning indicates an autonomous will to me. If you do not agree, then I guess our minor disagreement simply boils down to our interpretation of Augustine’s statement. I think this is the crux of our discussion/disagreement?

During his time of “probation” in the garden, he had the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He chose to exercise the ability to sin and thus plunged the race into ruin.

 

 

Your Questions

Agreed, Adam did not have a sin nature. Adam was good before the fall.

 

Correct me if you think I am wrong? But I do not see how corruption and/or sin marred the image of God at this point? Agreed

 

Agreed that: “Of course I believe Satan was in the garden intentionally, he was put there because God not only permitted Satan to be there but because He had a plan”

 

Thx for your patience.

Edited by Fastfredy0
Add quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may interject a thought -- ever since Lucifer was thrown out of heaven as well as the other angels who followed him -- and cast down here to earth -- Lucifer, then becoming satan -- has been out to destroy everything that God puts into existence. God had given Adam and then Eve, One instruction -- only one thing that they were Not to do. God already knew that A/E would succomb to the serpent's disception. They tried to cover up their sin by their own 'leaves' , but God provided the first 'covering for sin' through the shed blood of an animal. Genesis 3:21.

 

God's provision through the cross -- will enable a future New Jerusalem to exist in the Future. This present earth will be destroyed -- evil will be in eternal torment in lake of fire -- and believers will Again be in a perfect world -- with God -- again -- with His people who started out being Adam and Eve.

 

There will Also be the 1,000 reign of Christ here on earth with satan being locked up in the Abyss. After he's released -- there will be the final war and God Will Be the Winner.

 

The 1,000 yrs. will take place Before 'this' happens.

 

And, it Does get a bit confusing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This would be Martin Luther in today's pelagianistic churches...which covers a vast majority of the USA's churches...

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG0ZYsa8Rx0mlCSeWKFM97Az7dMr6ovf479EIX59YhA8X7flkl

I do not think so! Most of these churches that believe unsaved man has free will also believe ini the necessity of trusting in Christ alone for salvation. Many of them and many of the people are saved and by no means close to the level of heresy as the Romanish church is.

 

We are all heretics in some measure, for none of u9s have a faull lock on doctrine and truth. We must be careful about fights within the body, they can do more than good if not done in the right spirit. As a teacher in my church I fight fiercely for the fact that unsaved man can do nothing towards salvation in and of themself. But I will not roar against those not ready to let go of untruth yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the choice to receive Christ as Lord and Saviour rests with the natural man no one will ever be saved and Christ's death was and is null and void, but if it is God who chooses whom He will bestow salvation upon and adopt into His family, then Christ's death was for those whom He chose which is a predetermined amount of people, known as the elect.

What about John 3:16 -- that who so ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the choice to receive Christ as Lord and Saviour rests with the natural man no one will ever be saved and Christ's death was and is null and void, but if it is God who chooses whom He will bestow salvation upon and adopt into His family, then Christ's death was for those whom He chose which is a predetermined amount of people, known as the elect.

Calvinist.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×