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

[Guest]

So you agree that Suzanna's argument is a non-starter, and now want to move the attack on Calvinism to another front. OK...

Not so fast; I was supposing for the sake of argument, not necessarily agreeing with the entirety of your claims on this verse. For example, you say Jeremiah 19:5 is not dealing with God's knowledge. While I feel this may be debatable, I didn't want to focus on this point which was what you claimed the verse wasn't discussing. Instead, I wanted to comment on what you said it was discussing. This is fine with you, no?

In response to what you claimed the verse was about, I had said "On the surface, God is passionately against these acts, but behind the scenes, the God according to Calvinism wanted this to happen, and ensured this to come to pass via divine decrees. Whether he withrew the grace necessary to resist these evil acts, or put it in their hearts to walk in this rebellion, their is really no practical difference because the outcome remains and God brought it to pass in one way or another. I was hoping that you'd explain this (if it's even possible for the Calvinist to do so without playing the mystery card). Instead, you attempted to put the spotlight on me, and in doing so you've put a rug over this hole that exists in your theology by saying:

Well, presumably Arminians would agree that God at least permitted it to happen. He created these people, knowing from all eternity that they would do this, but He had no purpose in it whatsoever? Can you explain why?

Sorry friend, but you are in the "hot seat" and this is a "moment of truth" for you to answer. Once you "show" us how this hole is just apparent and not actual, I can walk towards your answering your question and get past this hole without falling into it. Again, this is fine with you, no? I mean, I have asked you a question the nature and status of the lost here. I await your answer, and if you do answer, please do in that forum.

Seriously bshow, in order for Calvinism to be true, we must decipher this and see the hidden reality under the surface to see that God desired this to be, though He has given us every reason to believe He didn't when He moved Jeremiah to express His heart towards the kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. You say this is wrong and that...

We don't need to know God's reasons. It's enough to know that He has sufficient reasons and that He is wise and just and we can trust Him.

...but the focus of my point is about how we must view this verse if Calvinism is true, not about God's reasoning behind the issues. While you've offered your thoughts on my point, I'm afraid you somehow missed my point altogether, and have not addressed the central focus of my point. I hope you will though.

[Guest]

There have been a lot of points to address and they're scattered about -- there are a couple of points that need to be addressed though. If you have some discrete questions or points you would like addressed, I would appreciate a brief restatement since some time has passed and there are intervening comments, etc. I would be glad to elaborate or consider further.

See the OP, Gregg claimed Calvin’s position is that “God makes man wicked”.

First, the discussion above you suggest is OT isn't -- it goes directly to the subject - that is, whether God makes man wicked or finds him that way -- now, we have established that there is a position within that topic whether Adam is a special case or not. That bears on the topic and is worth discussing.

No it doesn’t because Gregg’s statement doesn’t reflect any qualifiers. Granted what you bring up might bear on the discussion from a wider context, but this OP is very narrow in focus. As requested if you want to enlarge the scope of the topic, please start your own OP.

Second, please quit telling me that I haven't taken the time or cared enough to consider xy or z, or suggesting that I haven't read Calvin, or considered the full breadth of the issue we're discussing. For starters, it's not helpful to suggest those things -- but moreover, it's not true -- I was once a Calvinist and did read Calvin's Institutes among many other writings -- however, it has been some time, and to tell you the truth I read some things quite quickly when they seemed to fit nicely along with my beliefs, something I think most other Calvinists also do. So, the fact that I either didn't appreciate Calvin's fine "distinction" on this point or whether I forgot that I had read it doesn't mean I don't have sufficient scope to discuss the issue. With that logic, none of us could discuss a topic since none of us have read everything on the subject.

Hey you are the one who admitted you didn’t know of the “distinction” albeit I don’t think the term “distinction” adequately sheds light into the term Calvin actually used. Free-will = “fine distinction” okdokey.

So... if you want to "stick" to the narrow topic of whether Steve misrepresented Calvin, can you point me to the time stamp of the broadcast where you think he did so? I re-listened today to the broadcast I thought you were referring to and didn't hear anything about Adam or Calvin's views of Calvin.

It is in the OP, “I was just listening to the copy of Gregg’s radio broadcast the day after the debate ended. During a discussion with the 1st call-in to the show at point 10.54 on the file on Gregg’s web-site Gregg claims Calvin’s position is that God makes man wicked”

To respond briefly to your point as to freewill being referred to as a "distinction," I don't think that's the manner in which I meant the term. What I intended to convey was that Calvin made a distinction between the created man, Adam, and the rest of created mankind. I do, too, but Calvin appears to do so only in a way to logically remove the guilt of God in creating mankind evil, and he can then rely on the fallen nature of the rest of humanity to suggest God wasn't the cause of their wickedness.

According to Calvin God didn’t “create mankind evil” According to Calvin God created Adam with a will that had the ability to chose and infact was biased toward choosing God.

However, as I pointed out, this "distinction" doesn't remove the problem, since it was completely foreseeable to God (being perfect truth/knowledge as you have pointed out) -- Calvin recognizes this logical problem and provides the example of the axe-wielder to explain how God can't be responsible for the eventual consequences just for setting things in motion, so to speak, but Calvin didn't appreciate the difference between the foreseeability of the axe-wielder and that of God in creating Adam, so I think his explanation evaporates on examination. He finally admits the difficulty of the situation, and admits that it is in some ways a fiction (in his words, mystery), but that such is necessary to absolve God of the responsibility. I have pointed out, I think, that it just doesn't seem to resolve the guilt. The difference with the Arminian is that he doesn't think God needs to be absolved of anything and doesn't need to rely on mystery.

Well I believe I responded to your argument and I look forward to you opening your own OP on the matter so that we can explore the difference in the Arminain position as opposed to the Calvinist.

I think if Steve mischaracterized Calvin's particular position (as opposed to accurately suggesting the still-same logical consequences of that position) he would be the first to admit that he mis-spoke or had forgotten or failed to appreciate Calvin's position, but that his larger point otherwise wouldn't change. However, I'm not sure (as you seem intent to prove) that he did make such a mischaracterization.

Well I haven’t seen it as yet. Listen to the rebroadcast at the point in the show I suggest in the OP, the same point you requested. If I’m wrong I would be more than happy to understand that as I would hate to think a Bible teacher as esteemed as Gregg would intentionally mislead one of those calling to seek his advice.

PaulT

[Guest]

I found the broadcast you referred to, so it's time to get this one resolved quickly so we can move on to more substantive points, if you want...

I think you need to go back and re-listen to it -- Steve rightly points out, I think, that it was Calvin's position that God doesn't "find man wicked," but "makes man wicked." I think this is an accurate characterization (if not outright quote) to Calvin. I'll have to find the Calvin quote I have in mind, but it's clear that Steve was referring to "mankind" generally and not "Adam" specifically.

It's true that Calvin made a distinction when it came to Adam, but that doesn't negate his views of post-Adam mankind, generally.

I think Steve's point is right and accurate, and properly expresses the mood and belief of Calvinists and Calvin himself even if Calvin makes a fine theoretical exception with respect to Adam so that fallen man is responsible for his own condition even though God makes him that way.

Surely you jest, I provided Calvin’s quote in which he claims Adam was made with a free choice and a bias toward God. Calvin’s position post fall is that man due to Adam’s fall is born with sin, again, this isn’t God making them wicked, the wickedness is passed on from Adam who was made without sin. Clearly your bias is not allowing you to clearly discern that which Gregg represented and what Calvin actually wrote. “Free-will = “fine theoretical exception” I trust you understand the term intellectually dishonest. According to Calvin Adam the 1st man was made without sin and you suggest Gregg’s representation is consistent with Calvin’s position, that Adam was really made wicked. I guess honesty is well defined on this web-site.

PaulT

[Guest]

Hey you are the one who admitted you didn’t know of the “distinction” albeit I don’t think the term “distinction” adequately sheds light into the term Calvin actually used. Free-will = “fine distinction” okdokey.

I never suggested there is only a fine distinction between the concepts of "freewill" and the lack thereof -- the fine distinction is that of between all mankind having that freewill and Adam alone having it. I agree with the distinction, by the way. I just don't try to resolve so much by way of the distinction as Calvin seems to try to do.

I found the broadcast you referred to, so it's time to get this one resolved quickly so we can move on to more substantive points, if you want...

I think you need to go back and re-listen to it -- Steve rightly points out, I think, that it was Calvin's position that God doesn't "find man wicked," but "makes man wicked." I think this is an accurate characterization (if not outright quote) to Calvin. I'll have to find the Calvin quote I have in mind, but it's clear that Steve was referring to "mankind" generally and not "Adam" specifically.

It's true that Calvin made a distinction when it came to Adam, but that doesn't negate his views of post-Adam mankind, generally.

I think Steve's point is right and accurate, and properly expresses the mood and belief of Calvinists and Calvin himself even if Calvin makes a fine theoretical exception with respect to Adam so that fallen man is responsible for his own condition even though God makes him that way.

Surely you jest, I provided Calvin’s quote in which he claims Adam was made with a free choice and a bias toward God. Calvin’s position post fall is that man due to Adam’s fall is born with sin, again, this isn’t God making them wicked, the wickedness is passed on from Adam who was made without sin. Clearly your bias is not allowing you to clearly discern that which Gregg represented and what Calvin actually wrote. “Free-will = “fine theoretical exception” I trust you understand the term intellectually dishonest. According to Calvin Adam the 1st man was made without sin and you suggest Gregg’s representation is consistent with Calvin’s position, that Adam was really made wicked. I guess honesty is well defined on this web-site.

No, I don't jest, and it's not a matter of bias. It's quite simply looking objectively at what he said and whether it says what you say it says. It's a completely dispassionate look at whether what Steve says technically mischaracterizes Calvin. To equate "God made man wicked" with "God made Adam wicked, too" is to mischaracterize what Steve said. Whether his actual comment fairly assesses Calvin is another matter, and is what the bulk of this topic has been addressing -- that is, the logical conclusion of Calvin's beliefs and how it still results in a position whereby God creates man wicked. But, since you don't want to go there, let's focus only on Steve's actual comments.

What part of Steve's comments addressed Adam, specifically?

[Guest]

So you agree that Suzanna's argument is a non-starter, and now want to move the attack on Calvinism to another front. OK...

Not so fast; I was supposing for the sake of argument, not necessarily agreeing with the entirety of your claims on this verse. For example, you say Jeremiah 19:5 is not dealing with God's knowledge. While I feel this may be debatable, I didn't want to focus on this point which was what you claimed the verse wasn't discussing. Instead, I wanted to comment on what you said it was discussing. This is fine with you, no?

OK, so you reserve the right to come back to Suzana's argument. Fine, let me know when you want to switch back to that one.

You have a problem with my claim that "this is a hyperbolic statement, expressing God's outrange (sic) at the enormity of the sin."

In response to what you claimed the verse was about, I had said "On the surface, God is passionately against these acts, but behind the scenes, the God according to Calvinism wanted this to happen, and ensured this to come to pass via divine decrees.

Yes, I agree that God had a purpose in this happening. I don't agree that He has to "pull strings" to make it happen as you seem to imply; the Israelites were quite willing to do it.

Whether he withrew the grace necessary to resist these evil acts, or put it in their hearts to walk in this rebellion, their is really no practical difference because the outcome remains and God brought it to pass in one way or another.

I don't think that exhausts the options. I don't know what you mean by "with[d]rew the grace necessary to resist"? Has God provided grace that He then withdraws? Perhaps you meant "withheld?".

I was hoping that you'd explain this (if it's even possible for the Calvinist to do so without playing the mystery card). Instead, you attempted to put the spotlight on me, and in doing so you've put a rug over this hole that exists in your theology by saying:

Well, presumably Arminians would agree that God at least permitted it to happen. He created these people, knowing from all eternity that they would do this, but He had no purpose in it whatsoever? Can you explain why?

The point is that your argument is based on the idea that certain implications follow from the notion that God decreed that an evil act be permitted to occur. Whatever those implications are, the same would follow from the notion that God foreknew from all eternity that the act would occur, and created anyway.

As far as "explaining" it without resorting to "the mystery card", if you're looking for revelation as to why God permits this or that evil act, I don't think we have it.

It seems to me we're now just talking about the Problem of Evil.
[/quote]

Sorry friend, but you are in the "hot seat" and this is a "moment of truth" for you to answer. Once you "show" us how this hole is just apparent and not actual, I can walk towards your answering your question and get past this hole without falling into it.

Wow, the "hot seat". You'll have to help me see the "hole" as something other than the Problem of Evil. Or do you want my theodicy?

Again, this is fine with you, no? I mean, I have asked you a question the nature and status of the lost here. I await your answer, and if you do answer, please do in that forum.

Seriously bshow, in order for Calvinism to be true, we must decipher this and see the hidden reality under the surface to see that God desired this to be, though He has given us every reason to believe He didn't when He moved Jeremiah to express His heart towards the kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem.

I'm not seeing how this is specific to Calvinism. All systems have to have an explanation for why God permits evil to exist. Those who say evil is part of His decree claim that He has an ultimate purpose for evil, and appeal to what we know about His wisdom and holiness to claim that that purpose (although unknown to us) is righteous and just.

Those who say evil is not part of His decree say, well, what exactly? He's powerless to prevent it? He is indifferent to it?

You say this is wrong and that...

We don't need to know God's reasons. It's enough to know that He has sufficient reasons and that He is wise and just and we can trust Him.

...but the focus of my point is about how we must view this verse if Calvinism is true, not about God's reasoning behind the issues. While you've offered your thoughts on my point, I'm afraid you somehow missed my point altogether, and have not addressed the central focus of my point. I hope you will though.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

I'm not seeing how this is specific to Calvinism. All systems have to have an explanation for why God permits evil to exist. Those who say evil is part of His decree claim that He has an ultimate purpose for evil, and appeal to what we know about His wisdom and holiness to claim that that purpose (although unknown to us) is righteous and just.

Those who say evil is not part of His decree say, well, what exactly? He's powerless to prevent it? He is indifferent to it?

The non-Calvinist doesn't believe evil is within God's will. I think we non-Calvinists would all agree that God has in some sense two wills, too, but see it much differently. They aren't conflicting wills within Himself, but instead He has a large plan within His greater will that allows for the possibility that things can happen that He would prefer did not happen, so that His greater purposes and will can be effected. This is the image of the sort of complex emotional and psychological being that we were created to reflect. Neither God nor His "will" is just a grand force or singularity of all truth and power to us -- He is a personality with complex feelings and a hierarchy of preferences.

He truly doesn't want sin to happen. He is not powerless to prevent it, but he is willing to allow it so that love can be freely shown by Himself and experienced by Himself with free creatures. I wish my son would not ever touch the stove. My greater will is that he learn to avoid hot things, so he won't walk into a furnace and die. I would rather he learn this lesson without burning his finger on the stove. I will not set up a situation to make sure he does burn his finger for the purpose of teaching him that lesson, and will hope he responds to my teaching and other methods of learning, and will grab his hand when I see him reach for the stove. But, if he must, and he ignroes my teaching, then I will cry when he burns his hand, but will rejoice in degree that he may have learned a greater lesson from it. Because I am not willing to take that risk with his well-being as to firearms, I lock them up. This is a complex hierarchy of my will but there is no conflicting secret will within myself that would both wish for him to burn himself and wish for him not to do so. I don't think this is a direct analogy for God, but just to explain how our wills and preferences are complex, and I think His are, too.

My understanding of Calvinism is that they believe God somehow relishes in the evil within His will because the evil itself (by contrast with righteousness or otherwise) somehow glorifies Himself.

I believe that God could be glorified and would prefer to be glorified through a creation that chose good over evil, but He knew that this wouldn't happen. Knowing this, though it hurt Him to allow it, He provided a resolution for this evil at significant cost to Himself.

The extent to which God foreknew each of these things is difficult for us to grasp, and is indeed in measure a mystery. However, I find it possible that God blinds Himself (out of necessity or pleasure) to some degree of foreknowledge so that there is some degree of freedom and surprise in the outcome. I don't know how that might work, but it seems to be reflected in his revelation.

It's important to understand, whether we're talking about evil or foreknowledge or whatever -- there is a BIG difference between what God is capable of doing and what He has decided to do or in fact done.

[Guest]

I'm not seeing how this is specific to Calvinism. All systems have to have an explanation for why God permits evil to exist. Those who say evil is part of His decree claim that He has an ultimate purpose for evil, and appeal to what we know about His wisdom and holiness to claim that that purpose (although unknown to us) is righteous and just.

Those who say evil is not part of His decree say, well, what exactly? He's powerless to prevent it? He is indifferent to it?

The non-Calvinist doesn't believe evil is within God's will. I think we non-Calvinists would all agree that God has in some sense two wills, too, but see it much differently. They aren't conflicting wills within Himself, but instead He has a large plan within His greater will that allows for the possibility that things can happen that He would prefer did not happen, so that His greater purposes and will can be effected.

Hi Darin,

OK, but that's the Calvinist doctrine. What Calvinist teaches that God has "conflicting wills within Himself?" I see lots of opponents of Calvinism claiming that, but you need to interact with what Calvinists actually teach.

But I'm encouraged; I hope those who repeatedly ridicule and rail against any doctrine of two wills will learn from you.

This is the image of the sort of complex emotional and psychological being that we were created to reflect. Neither God nor His "will" is just a grand force or singularity of all truth and power to us -- He is a personality with complex feelings and a hierarchy of preferences.

Again, the Calvinist agrees. What Calvinist teaches that God's will is a "grand force or singularity?" The doctrine of two wills is a Calvinist and biblical doctrine.

He truly doesn't want sin to happen. He is not powerless to prevent it, but he is willing to allow it so that love can be freely shown by Himself and experienced by Himself with free creatures.

Here's where I begin to have a problem. You say He "truly" doesn't want sin to happen, and yet He is not powerless to prevent it. So He could prevent it if He "truly" wanted to.

If I claimed that God truly doesn't want sin to happen, you wouldn't accept it. Why should I accept it when you claim it, given the above?

Anyway, He doesn't prevent evil (hence the need for a theodicy). Why? You offer a theodicy: because He values something more: "so that love can be freely shown by Himself and experienced by Himself with free creatures."

Now that sounds good, at least on the surface. But where is that affirmatively taught in the Scripture? Where can I go to learn that God permits evil in order that love can be freely shown?

Furthermore, does the explanation even work? Let's see...

I wish my son would not ever touch the stove. My greater will is that he learn to avoid hot things, so he won't walk into a furnace and die. I would rather he learn this lesson without burning his finger on the stove. I will not set up a situation to make sure he does burn his finger for the purpose of teaching him that lesson, and will hope he responds to my teaching and other methods of learning, and will grab his hand when I see him reach for the stove. But, if he must, and he ignroes my teaching, then I will cry when he burns his hand, but will rejoice in degree that he may have learned a greater lesson from it. Because I am not willing to take that risk with his well-being as to firearms, I lock them up.

So you are willing to permit a small evil, for the sake of a greater good, but not a larger evil?

What about God? When a child is raped and murdered by a vicious pedophile, does God allow it "so that love can be freely shown..."? Who is showing love in that situation? Does He respect the free will of the pedophile more than that of the child or his parents?

If you say "there is some larger good, some larger purpose that we just can't see", then you are giving the Calvinist answer. But you've already claimed that evil is no part of God's will, so which is it?

This is a complex hierarchy of my will but there is no conflicting secret will within myself that would both wish for him to burn himself and wish for him not to do so. I don't think this is a direct analogy for God, but just to explain how our wills and preferences are complex, and I think His are, too.

Until you can give some support for the "conflicting wills" claim, it's a caricature of the Calvinist position.

My understanding of Calvinism is that they believe God somehow relishes in the evil within His will because the evil itself (by contrast with righteousness or otherwise) somehow glorifies Himself.

Well that's preposterous. Again, back up these claims with quotes from Calvinists that teach God "relishes" in evil, or that evil itself glorifies God.

I believe that God could be glorified and would prefer to be glorified through a creation that chose good over evil, but He knew that this wouldn't happen. Knowing this, though it hurt Him to allow it, He provided a resolution for this evil at significant cost to Himself.

I've run into several people who think this way. The world we have is kind of a "plan B"; it could have been better, but God just can't always get His way, so He does the best He can. I have trouble with this notion, but then again, I like to think of myself as a "seven point Calvinist" along with John Piper. (see point 7; just google for "seven point calvinist").

Will God be eternally disappointed over what "might have been?"

The extent to which God foreknew each of these things is difficult for us to grasp, and is indeed in measure a mystery. However, I find it possible that God blinds Himself (out of necessity or pleasure) to some degree of foreknowledge so that there is some degree of freedom and surprise in the outcome. I don't know how that might work, but it seems to be reflected in his revelation.

It's important to understand, whether we're talking about evil or foreknowledge or whatever -- there is a BIG difference between what God is capable of doing and what He has decided to do or in fact done.

Troy will get on you for "playing the mystery card"...

The "blinds Himself" is another interesting approach. I fear it has some interesting implications if one were to pull on that thread (necessity? pleasure?) But again, where can I find that in the Scriptures?

Can't agree with that last point. If God knows that the rape will occur, and has no purpose in it, but creates anyway, how is that somehow "better" than me saying that He has a purpose in the evil He permits? Even the Open Theist can't escape that problem, because even if God doesn't know the future, he knows the present state of mind of the rapist as he contemplates his crime.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Hey you are the one who admitted you didn’t know of the “distinction” albeit I don’t think the term “distinction” adequately sheds light into the term Calvin actually used. Free-will = “fine distinction” okdokey.

I never suggested there is only a fine distinction between the concepts of "freewill" and the lack thereof -- the fine distinction is that of between all mankind having that freewill and Adam alone having it. I agree with the distinction, by the way. I just don't try to resolve so much by way of the distinction as Calvin seems to try to do.

Perhaps you should study Calvin’s institutes, according to Calvin man today have the same will Adam was created with, Calvin’s point is that man today follows the desires of his heart. IOW God doesn’t make man wicked, according to Calvin man wants to be wicked. Which if this is the “distinction” you are attempting to draw in explanation of Gregg’s misrepresentation, you are still left with a misrepresentation because there is a difference from God “makes” to man “desires”.

I found the broadcast you referred to, so it's time to get this one resolved quickly so we can move on to more substantive points, if you want...

I think you need to go back and re-listen to it -- Steve rightly points out, I think, that it was Calvin's position that God doesn't "find man wicked," but "makes man wicked." I think this is an accurate characterization (if not outright quote) to Calvin. I'll have to find the Calvin quote I have in mind, but it's clear that Steve was referring to "mankind" generally and not "Adam" specifically.

It's true that Calvin made a distinction when it came to Adam, but that doesn't negate his views of post-Adam mankind, generally.

I think Steve's point is right and accurate, and properly expresses the mood and belief of Calvinists and Calvin himself even if Calvin makes a fine theoretical exception with respect to Adam so that fallen man is responsible for his own condition even though God makes him that way.

Surely you jest, I provided Calvin’s quote in which he claims Adam was made with a free choice and a bias toward God. Calvin’s position post fall is that man due to Adam’s fall is born with sin, again, this isn’t God making them wicked, the wickedness is passed on from Adam who was made without sin. Clearly your bias is not allowing you to clearly discern that which Gregg represented and what Calvin actually wrote. “Free-will = “fine theoretical exception” I trust you understand the term intellectually dishonest. According to Calvin Adam the 1st man was made without sin and you suggest Gregg’s representation is consistent with Calvin’s position, that Adam was really made wicked. I guess honesty is well defined on this web-site.

No, I don't jest, and it's not a matter of bias. It's quite simply looking objecti
vely at what he said and whether it says what you say it says. It's a completely dispassionate look at whether what Steve says technically mischaracterizes Calvin. To equate "God made man wicked" with "God made Adam wicked, too" is to mischaracterize what Steve said. Whether his actual comment fairly assesses Calvin is another matter, and is what the bulk of this topic has been addressing -- that is, the logical conclusion of Calvin's beliefs and how it still results in a position whereby God creates man wicked. But, since you don't want to go there, let's focus only on Steve's actual comments.

What part of Steve's comments addressed Adam, specifically?

LOL, Gregg did not represent his view as the “logical” conclusion of Calvin’s position but claimed quite clearly, Calvin said “God makes man wicked”. Your dispassionate view is attempting to put quite the spin on what Gregg communicated to the caller. Not only does what Gregg said “technically” misrepresent Calvin’s position, no one thus far has provided the quote Gregg claims Calvin actually said.

Darin, Adam was the 1st man, no? God created Adam, correct? Every man after Adam has arrived on the planet due to the natural process God instilled, correct. Whether one when speaking of God’s initial Creation when he made man or the natural process that brought forth the human race subsequent to that Gregg misrepresented Calvin’s view because according to Calvin, in very explicit term God made him specifically and the entire race in him with a free will. In either case to represent Calvin’s view that “God makes man wicked” is intellectually dishonest, because according to Calvin man in Adam had a free will yet when Adam fell man’s will, due to Adam’s action not God’s, exclusively follows the desires of his heart. Calvin’s position is that pre-fall man was neutral with a bias toward God having the ability to follow either course, post fall man entirely wants’ to follow his desires and has no wish to follow God. In neither case it is not close to accurate to represent Calvin with a position that, “God makes man wicked”. Gregg’s representation is a classic straw-man, which when compared to what Calvin actually wrote burns to the ground.

BTW, Do you have the out-right quote?

PaulT

[Guest]

Bob,

I'm afraid I'm no expert in this area and don't feel adequate to debate the finer points of the two wills of God. I only intend to answer your inquiries as to the general view of the non-Calvinist. If I mischaracterize either position, I hope someone will come in and correct my misunderstanding or imprecise language. I do think I have generally characterized them in the way I have understood the two basic positions to differ.

I am presently reading a long paper on the Two Wills doctrine, which will no doubt put some finer points together on the subject, and if you can be patient, I would love to continue this dialogue afterwards as I have limited time to engage in debates as I learn and manage my career and family obligations.

So, meanwhile, I would be more than pleased if someone could help polish my presentation or correct my understanding.

[Guest]

Bob (off-topic),

Just curious...what's the deal with the dude in the devil suit making the peace sign?