Calvin's position on Adam's will, was Adam programmed to sin

[_darin-houston]

I don't see how the Calvinist can make this distinction, since they hold that God can't will something (decretively) that doesn't come to pass. There's not much difference in that case between make and will. I think these arguments get silly fast, but that seems to be the Calvinist view.

Calvinists are willing to grant that God might have a prescriptive will that is thwarted, but I don't see how that upholds God's infinite and inpenetrable sovereignty as they try to do.

See recent two wills discussion
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=2447

[Guest]

[
It's the eternal good pleasure of God (Btw, i'm not prepared to make the eternal good pleasure of God distinct from God himself). Here's the MAKEing part: they are not found but made worthy of destruction. Who's the doer of the verbs FOUND and MADE? My opinion is that it's the eternal good pleasure of God (the original and the only object mentioned in the sentence).

Well, your interpretation of Calvin’s words puts you at odds with Calvin’s own words who clearly wrote, “Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell;” as well as, “. Let me suggest another possibility, you weren’t provided the full quote, nor the context the quote came from. The quote that you’ve commented upon was the critics viewpoint of Calvin’s and not, I repeat not Calvin’s position, see below,


Pighius, however, still pushes on his violent opposition, alleging that if what I teach be true, that those who perish were ordained unto everlasting death by the eternal will of God, of which the reason is imperceptible to us, the persons so ordained are made worthy of everlasting death, not found so. I reply that three things are here to be considered: 1. That the eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the Fall of Adam, what should take place in the whole human race and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined. 2. That Adam himself, on account of his departure from God, was deservedly appointed to eternal death. 3. And lastly, that in the person of Adam, thus fallen and lost, his whole future offspring were also eternally condemned; but so eternally condemned that God deems worthy the honour of His adoption all those whom He freely chose out of that future offspring. Of these mighty things I have neither dreamed any part, nor fabricated any part. Nor am I called upon, in the present instance, to prove each particular, for I consider that I have most effectually done that already. All I shall do is to wash off from myself the calumny with which my opponent has soiled me, when he says that these things can in no way be made to harmonise or consist with each other. Whereas, what I have ever invariably taught, and still teach at this day, is, that whenever election is the subject of discussion, the great point to be maintained, from first to last, is that all the reprobate are justly left under eternal death, because they died and were eternally condemned in Adam; also, that those perish justly who are by nature the children of wrath; and finally, that, therefore, no one can have cause to complain of the too great severity of God, seeing that all men bear, in themselves and in their individual persons, the guilt and desert of death eternal.

After the above paragraph Calvin goes on to explain his true position,

When we come to speak of the first man in our discussion of the doctrine of predestination, my teaching is that we ought ever to consider the solemn case to be this: that he, having been created perfectly righteous, fell of his own accord and willingly, and that, by that fall he brought destruction eternal on himself and his whole future race. And though Adam fell not, nor destroyed himself and his posterity, either without the knowledge or without the ordaining will of God, yet that neither lessens his own fault, nor implicates God in any blame whatever. For we must ever carefully bear in mind that that Adam, of his own will and accord, deprived himself of that perfect righteousness which he had received from God; and that, of his own accord and will, he gave himself up to the service of sin and Satan, and thus precipitated himself into destruction eternal. Here, however, men will continually offer one uniform excuse for Adam--that it was not possible for him to help or avoid that which God Himself had decreed. But to establish the guilt of Adam for ever, his own voluntary transgression is enough, and more than sufficient. Nor, indeed, is the secret counsel of God the real and virtual cause of sin, but manifestly the will and inclination of man.

PaulT

[Guest]

Paul,

You will find that most of us here do not object to others disagreeing with us, and we would be very satisfied if the Calvinists would merely be honest participants in the conversation. For example, you wrote:

“'Will’s' and 'makes' are 2 different concepts."

You were responding to a citation in which Calvin wrote:

"...they are not found but made worthy of destruction."

It sounds as if you are refusing to look at the words people all presenting to you, and that you hope we will not notice your doing so.

Perhaps it slipped your mind that the word "made" (in Calvin's quote) is the same word as "makes" in yours?

If Calvin, on one occasion, says that God gave Adam freedom of choice, and on the other hand, says that God ordained everything, including the fall, and that those who are lost sinners were not found, but made that way by God's decree, then perhaps consistency is too much for us to ask from the man (and those who follow him).

Well given that Calvin has been misrepresented by you and the quote you’ve commented upon, I’m beginning to wonder what your definition of “honest” entails. Sir, the passage you are forming your opinion upon is in context as you can see below the straw-man of an opponent. I trust the commentary you authored contains better research and scholarship that what you’ve demonstrated here.



Pighius, however, still pushes on his violent opposition, alleging that if what I teach be true, that those who perish were ordained unto everlasting death by the eternal will of God, of which the reason is imperceptible to us, the persons so ordained are made worthy of everlasting death, not found so. I reply that three things are here to be considered: 1. That the eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the Fall of Adam, what should take place in the whole human race and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined. 2. That Adam himself, on account of his departure from God, was deservedly appointed to eternal death. 3. And lastly, that in the person of Adam, thus fallen and lost, his whole future offspring were also eternally condemned; but so eternally condemned that God deems worthy the honour of His adoption all those whom He freely chose out of that future offspring. Of these mighty things I have neither dreamed any part, nor fabricated any part. Nor am I called upon, in the present instance, to prove each particular, for I consider that I have most effectually done that already. All I shall do is to wash off from myself the calumny with which my opponent has soiled me, when he says that these things can in no way be made to harmonise or consist with each other. Whereas, what I have ever invariably taught, and still teach at this day, is, that whenever election is the subject of discussion, the great point to be maintained, from first to last, is that all the reprobate are justly left under eternal death, because they died and were eternally condemned in Adam; also, that those perish justly who are by nature the children of wrath; and finally, that, therefore, no one can have cause to complain of the too great severity of God, seeing that all men bear, in themselves and in their individual persons, the guilt and desert of death eternal.
________________________________________
THE ETERNAL PREDESTINATION OF GOD. 125
When we come to speak of the first man in our discussion of the doctrine of predestination, my teaching is that we ought ever to consider the solemn case to be this: that he, having been created perfectly righteous, fell of his own accord and willingly, and that, by that fall he brought destruction eternal on himself and his whole future race. And though Adam fell not, nor destroyed himself and his posterity, either without the knowledge or without the ordaining will of God, yet that neither lessens his own fault, nor implicates God in any blame whatever. For we must ever carefully bear in mind that
Adam, of his own will and accord, deprived himself of that perfect righteousness which he had received from God; and that, of his own accord and will, he gave himself up to the service of sin and Satan, and thus precipitated himself into destruction eternal. Here, however, men will continually offer one uniform excuse for Adam--that it was not possible for him to help or avoid that which God Himself had decreed. But to establish the guilt of Adam for ever, his own voluntary transgression is enough, and more than sufficient. Nor, indeed, is the secret counsel of God the real and virtual cause of sin, but manifestly the will and inclination of man.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index ... ation.html

So tell me Sir, now that you’ve been shown that Calvin’s position was not the critics position, which you've, (I trust) have been lead to believe was Calvin's, will you retract your explicit statement that in the view of Calvin, “God makes man wicked”?

PaulT

[Guest]

PaulT,


You wrote:

Let me suggest another possibility, you weren’t provided the full quote, nor the context the quote came from. The quote that you’ve commented upon was the critics viewpoint of Calvin’s and not, I repeat not Calvin’s position,

Thanks for pointing this out.. I think I did mistake Calvin for stating the quotes I based my arguments upon. What I'll do is i'll look the texts (also the other quotes posted by Troy C) up in the internet so I don't misrep anyone.

In Christ,
Richard

[Guest]

Whereas, what I have ever invariably taught, and still teach at this day, is, that whenever election is the subject of discussion, the great point to be maintained, from first to last, is that all the reprobate are justly left under eternal death, because they died and were eternally condemned in Adam;

Ezekial 18 must have been missing from Calvin's bible. I say all men suffer physical death because of Adam's sin. Show us scripture that says all are condemned to hell because Adam sinned.

[_darin-houston]

I don't really care what Calvin wrote in a given text -- what I care about is how his teachings have been carried by others calling themselves Calvinists (or even Reformed).

So, let’s grant your point with respect to Adam for a moment for the sake of argument – let’s assume Calvin and others did/do believe that Adam had moral freewill (even if his progeny did not) – let’s even grant that this is in fact true.

Now…...

Didn’t God have a decretive will from before Adam with respect to the outcome of all of creation?

Did God’s granting to Adam such freewill in some sense place God at the whim of Adam and, hence, create the risk that His full decretive will would not be done?

Was God’s post-Fall decrees merely a “backup plan” to ensure His ultimate plan would succeed? If those decrees were His primary (or only) plan, then could it have been thwarted by Adam? If not, then Adam wasn't truly free to choose otherwise, it seems.

If Adam truly could have chosen otherwise, it seems God was willing (and able with a “backup plan” of sorts) to take that sort of risk with Adam. Why could He not take it with the rest of mankind?

Is God only capable of a one-dimensional risk? Is He not infinitely capable to ensure contingencies for all eternity so that He can be certain that His will could be done though all mankind had a degree of freewill ?

Now, I think that most Arminians would concede that it is God’s prerogative (even within His revealed nature) to make exceptions and to control anything that He needs to in order to ensure His will is done, and it seems the only difference between Arminians and Calvinists (those who grant Adam freewill, anyway) is that of degree or temporality of God’s grant of freewill. At some point along the line, you have to wrestle with the same problem you accuse Arminians of having if you grant Adam freewill.

[Guest]

1. That the eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the Fall of Adam, what should take place in the whole human race and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined.

I've never seen a "decree" like this in the scriptures.
Calvin made it up (or got it from Augustine, who invented it).

[_darin-houston]

And though Adam fell not, nor destroyed himself and his posterity, either without the knowledge or without the ordaining will of God, yet that neither lessens his own fault, nor implicates God in any blame whatever. For we must ever carefully bear in mind that

I am very much interested in your response to my inquiry above, but I need to point out that I do think you're splitting hairs as to Calvin's view of Adam's fall. The following quote does deny some causation on God's part so as to retain Adam's "blame" for his fall, but Calvin seemed no doubt to think it was not possible for him to do otherwise; otherwise, he has a very incoherent view of God's ordination and "secret will." That God created Adam to fall seems inescapable from Calvin's teachings -- that God may have done so in a way that satisfied Calvin that Adam was still blameworthy as a participating cause doesn't deny the proximate cause being directed by God's own will and decree.

[Guest]

PaulT,


You wrote:

Let me suggest another possibility, you weren’t provided the full quote, nor the context the quote came from. The quote that you’ve commented upon was the critics viewpoint of Calvin’s and not, I repeat not Calvin’s position,

Thanks for pointing this out.. I think I did mistake Calvin for stating the quotes I based my arguments upon. What I'll do is i'll look the texts (also the other quotes posted by Troy C) up in the internet so I don't misrep anyone.

In Christ,
Richard

No problem, thank you for the admission. Like I’ve previously pointed out, I typically don’t question motives, but in this case it does seem odd that the quote was positioned in such a way as to give the appearance that Calvin was merely stating his position rather than pointing out what his critic was claiming. Troy seems to be a decent enough guy, he no doubt has listened to teachers who haven’t taken the time, nor had the inclination to really investigate the position they are opposing.

PaulT

[_darin-houston]

PaulT,


You wrote:

Let me suggest another possibility, you weren’t provided the full quote, nor the context the quote came from. The quote that you’ve commented upon was the critics viewpoint of Calvin’s and not, I repeat not Calvin’s position,

Thanks for pointing this out.. I think I did mistake Calvin for stating the quotes I based my arguments upon. What I'll do is i'll look the texts (also the other quotes posted by Troy C) up in the internet so I don't misrep anyone.

In Christ,
Richard

No problem, thank you for the admission. Like I’ve previously pointed out, I typically don’t question motives, but in this case it does seem odd that the quote was positioned in such a way as to give the appearance that Calvin was merely stating his position rather than pointing out what his critic was claiming. Troy seems to be a decent enough guy, he no doubt has listened to teachers who haven’t taken the time, nor had the inclination to really investigate the position they are opposing.

PaulT

First, I appreciate this dialogue -- I hadn't understood Calvin's distinctions in this regard before. However, I do still think he is wrong. (I have also read other things that seem to contradict this, but can't recall where).

I do now recognize that Calvin in this work refused to admit that he believed God caused Adam's sin, but that is still the logical consequence of his beliefs. He appeals to mystery a great deal in this respect, but even his presuppositions and understanding of causation are flawed in my opinion. Much work has been done since Calvin (and before) in legal philosophy in terms of proximate and other causation that he didn't appear to grasp.

Notwithstanding Calvin's appeal to the Medean axe man in cutting down the tree, there is some flawed logic, here, stemming from a flawed understanding of proximate cause. The principle difference from a legal causation (read "blame") here is that the axe man had no foreseeability that his tree might end up causing the destruction. However, God's knowledge (and even Will), as admitted by Calvin is perfect and complete before Creation as to not only the foreseeability of Adam's fall, but in the certainty of it (according to Calvin's view of ordination). He attempts to remove God's culpability by granting Adam a freewill and appealing to the intervening will of Adam, but I don't think that gets the job done in light of God's omniscience, and it does nothing to answer why such freewill isn't granted, as well, to man post-fall.