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

[Guest]

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, but is this Calvins position. Below is Calvin’s explanation for Adam prefall is what he terms is the “upright state”, “In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life.” who possessed the capacity to do both good and evil, “but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell.” Which would seem to stand in conflict with how Gregg explained Calvin’s position to the caller because not only is it Calvin’s position that man merely had the capacity to sin in the upright position but his bias was predisposed for good, “but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself.”

8. Free choice and Adam's responsibility
Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her "to hegemonikon". To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and judgement, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason.
In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself.
Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place, (see Book 2 chap. 2) At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition, - to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man's fall he might extract materials for his own glory.
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.ht ... nstitutes/

If according to Calvin Adam had a "free" will with the bias toward serving God how then does this equate to "God makes man evil"?

PaulT

[Guest]

Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her "to hegemonikon". To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and judgement, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason.

In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself.

Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place, (see Book 2 chap. 2)

At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition, - to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness.

Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man's fall he might extract materials for his own glory.

OK, what do you make of the following quotes then?

“If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction...The eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam he decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined...God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom he pleased and reprobated whom he willed.” -John Calvin "The Eternal Predestination of God," 8:5

"...that it could not be but that Adam would sin is equally true, considering Adam was subordinate to the decrees of God, determining what Adam would do out of the freedom of his own will." (Christopher Ness, "An Antidote Against Arminianism," 1700, p.54)

"We know that God is sovereign because we know that God is God. Therefore we must conclude that God foreordained sin. What else can we conclude? (R.C. Sproul, "Chosen by God, " 1986, p.31)

“The Reformed Christian may even biblically say that God has foreordained sin. For if sin was outside the plan of God, then we would have to maintain that God does not control all things, and that some things come into being apart from His sovereign will...Nothing is outside His sovereign purpose, including sin. But the decree with reference to sin... is a decree that renders sin an absolute certainty, but it is not brought about by a direct divine act.” (Kenneth Talbot & W. Gary Crampton, "Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism & Arminianism," 1990, pp.67,68,70-71)

[Guest]

Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her "to hegemonikon". To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and judgement, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason.

In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself.

Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place, (see Book 2 chap. 2)

At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition, - to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness.

Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man's fall he might extract materials for his own glory.

OK, what do you make of the following quotes then?

“If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction...The eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam he decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined...God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom he pleased and reprobated whom he willed.” -John Calvin "The Eternal Predestination of God," 8:5

"...that it could not be but that Adam would sin is equally true, considering Adam was subordinate to the decrees of God, determining what Adam would do out of the freedom of his own will." (Christopher Ness, "An Antidote Against Arminianism," 1700, p.54)

"We know that God is sovereign because we know that God is God. Therefore we must conclude that God foreordained sin. What else can we conclude? (R.C. Sproul, "Chosen by God, " 1986, p.31)

“The Reformed Christian may even biblically say that God has foreordained sin. For if sin was outside the plan of God, then we would have to maintain that God does not control all things, and that some things come into being apart from His sovereign will...Nothing is outside His sovereign purpose, including sin. But the decree with reference to sin... is a decree that renders sin an absolute certainty, but it is not brought about by a direct divine act.” (Kenneth Talbot & W. Gary Crampton, "Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism & Arminianism," 1990, pp.67,68,70-71)

Your point? I don't see any quotes that state Calvin's position was that "God makes man wicked".

PaulT

[Guest]

Hi all,

English is not my native tongue but the idea "God makes or made man wicked" can be drawn from the quotations TroyC has just given. But I'll just focus on the 1st one so as not to overload the discussion and of course feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

“If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction...The eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam he decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined...God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom he pleased and reprobated whom he willed.” -John Calvin "The Eternal Predestination of God," 8:5

THOSE WHO PERISH ARE DESTINED TO DEATH BY THE ETERNAL GOOD PLEASURE OF GOD

I understand this to mean that those who were not saved were appointed by God himself, to be not saved. If this were true, then God willed the unsaved to be wicked also since the only prerequesite to death (B) is wickedness/sinfulness (A), unless there are other prerequisites. I can't seem to figure out how God could destine/appoint/decree/will people to (B) without willing (A) to happen. Again i'm coming from the premise that (B) happens if and only if (A) happens.

THEY ARE NOT FOUND BUT MADE WORTHY OF DESTRUCTION
Again same reasoning.. how is one made worthy of destruction? Sinfulness/wickedness. So one is made worthy of destruction by making him sinful/wicked.

GOD CHOSE OUT OF THE CONDEMNED RACE OF ADAM THOSE WHOM HE PLEASED AND REPROBRATED WHOM HE WILLED.
I'm not sure but if I can say that 'reprobated' means 'made wicked'. Then the above would read AND MADE WICKED WHOM HE WILLED [to be made wicked]. Sure sounds the same to me as the idea "God makes or made man wicked".

Again, my understanding of the english words and grammar may be flawed. Feel free to help me untangle my logic should I be mistaken.


In Christ,
Richard

[Guest]

Hi all,

English is not my native tongue but the idea "God makes or made man wicked" can be drawn from the quotations TroyC has just given. But I'll just focus on the 1st one so as not to overload the discussion and of course feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

“If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction...The eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam he decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined...God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom he pleased and reprobated whom he willed.” -John Calvin "The Eternal Predestination of God," 8:5

THOSE WHO PERISH ARE DESTINED TO DEATH BY THE ETERNAL GOOD PLEASURE OF GOD

I understand this to mean that those who were not saved were appointed by God himself, to be not saved. If this were true, then God willed the unsaved to be wicked also since the only prerequesite to death (B) is wickedness/sinfulness (A), unless there are other prerequisites. I can't seem to figure out how God could destine/appoint/decree/will people to (B) without willing (A) to happen. Again i'm coming from the premise that (B) happens if and only if (A) happens.

THEY ARE NOT FOUND BUT MADE WORTHY OF DESTRUCTION
Again same reasoning.. how is one made worthy of destruction? Sinfulness/wickedness. So one is made worthy of destruction by making him sinful/wicked.

GOD CHOSE OUT OF THE CONDEMNED RACE OF ADAM THOSE WHOM HE PLEASED AND REPROBRATED WHOM HE WILLED.
I'm not sure but if I can say that 'reprobated' means 'made wicked'. Then the above would read AND MADE WICKED WHOM HE WILLED [to be made wicked]. Sure sounds the same to me as the idea "God makes or made man wicked".

Again, my understanding of the english words and grammar may be flawed. Feel free to help me untangle my logic should I be mistaken.


In Christ,
Richard

I’m not sure why you suggest, “but the idea "God makes or made man wicked" can be drawn from the quotations TroyC has just given”? “Will’s” and “makes” are 2 different concepts. If you do something you want to do and it is within my will I need not compel you to do it I can just allow you to do it and what you do is within my will while I didn’t “make” you do that which you did. Man was created with the capacity to do evil, this is fundamentally different than “God makes man evil.” Calvin’s point is that Adam freely chose to rebel. Calvin’s position is that this cut-off mankind from God the source of true knowledge such that when they now view God they rebel and are enemies of God. Therefore they chose to do evil, because their nature compels them to spurn God. Allowing man to follow his desire is not “making man do evil”, but in fact Calvin would suggest God restrains man in not being as evil as he could be. It is the will of God that those who rebel receive eternal damnation, allowing them to follow their desires is an example of God’s passive will rather than His active will when He draws particular men to Himself. For God to make man to do evil would suggest man was created with the single intention of doing evil, as demonstrated by the quote from the Institutes this is not Calvin’s position. Reprobated doesn’t mean He makes them wicked, it means He condemns them for their actions, which is why the quote you provided included the phrase, “GOD CHOSE OUT OF THE CONDEMNED RACE”.

PaulT

[Guest]

“Will’s” and “makes” are 2 different concepts. If you do something you want to do and it is within my will I need not compel you to do it I can just allow you to do it and what you do is within my will while I didn’t “make” you do that which you did. Man was created with the capacity to do evil, this is fundamentally different than “God makes man evil.”

I thought the Calvinist believed that in no way could God's will be thwarted and that He has seen fit to make sure that things are made in a way and controlled in a way if necessary to see that such will is obtained. That is what removes the distinction, I think, between will and make.

[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).

[Guest]

Paul,

You wrote:

Man was created with the capacity to do evil, this is fundamentally different than “God makes man evil.”

Do you mean Adam or all mankind?

[Guest]

Paul,

You wrote:

Man was created with the capacity to do evil, this is fundamentally different than “God makes man evil.”

Do you mean Adam or all mankind?

Adam, was created, his actions impacted humanity.

PaulT

[Guest]

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

I'm ready to agree that in some cases WILLs and MAKEs are two distinct concepts. For example, I WILL that my son tops the exam..so in response to my will, my son studied hard and eventually topped the exam. He MADE himself the topnotcher. In this example, WILL and MAKE/MADE are distinct in two ways, (1) WILLing is the intending, the desiring, the wanting, etc. whereas MAKEing is the act of bringing about something. (2) The doer or the object of the verbs are distinct -- I did the WILLing but my son did the MAKEing.

Now in the case of "...those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction..."

I'll agree that distinction #(1) is present but distinction #(2) is definitely not applicable. Here's the WILLing part in the statement: those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God. Who's the doer or object of the WILLing(destined to death)? 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).