ECT What is your definition of free will?

[nikolai_42]

There's a tricky subject-object relationship there that has even many commentators disagreeing wildly. But I don't think it changes the original issue. That is, if Cain doesn't "do well", he has sinned.

Forget the commentators!
Why assume when you can't by the words spoken by God. Was God speaking of sin or acceptance? Cain's offering was not accepted __ but was it a sin? REMEMBER, as with Adam, is "deeds" the issue __ as in "doing well" and you will be accepted..

The wicked go estranged from the womb speaking lies. Sin - even in the old testament - was a matter of the heart first. It was there. The influence was there. The heart was wicked - not just the deeds. Doing well only expressed what was in the heart as to that issue. if Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted, it was sin that brought that about. I suppose what I'm getting at is "sin begets sin" and, in a more fundmental way "the seeds of sin beget sin".

 

[Cross Reference]

The wicked go estranged from the womb speaking lies. Sin - even in the old testament - was a matter of the heart first. It was there. The influence was there. The heart was wicked - not just the deeds. Doing well only expressed what was in the heart as to that issue. if Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted, it was sin that brought that about. I suppose what I'm getting at is "sin begets sin" and, in a more fundmental way "the seeds of sin beget sin".

Plee-e-a-a-se, stay on topic. Let the words themselves give you understanding instead of attempting to make them say what they refuse to say? What's the point unless you mean to make them fit your doctrine __ instead of the other way around as it should be?

At this point, where does God even suggest Cain's heart was wicked? What prevents you from receiving the understanding that God instead wanted Cain to overcome something of himself that needed overcoming you have taken to yourself to believe Cain was incapable?

 

[chrysostom]

Plee-e-a-a-se, stay on topic.

what if they don't?

will you hold them responsible?
and
what will it be based on
if
you do?

 

[Cross Reference]

what if they don't?

will you hold them responsible?
and
what will it be based on
if
you do?

Your questions sometimes don't make sense, Chrys. What's your point in doing so? Bored, maybe?

 

[chrysostom]

Your questions sometimes don't make sense, Chrys. What's your point in doing so? Bored, maybe?

you can't hold them responsible
if
they don't have free will

didn't that occur to you?

 

[Cross Reference]

you can't hold them responsible
if
they don't have free will

didn't that occur to you?

It didn't occur to me. You are correct. In that I stand rectified in my judgment. Please accept my apology.

 

[nikolai_42]

Plee-e-a-a-se, stay on topic. Let the words themselves give you understanding instead of attempting to make them say what they refuse to say? What's the point unless you mean to make them fit your doctrine __ instead of the other way around as it should be?

At this point, where does God even suggest Cain's heart was wicked? What prevents you from receiving the understanding that God instead wanted Cain to overcome something of himself that needed overcoming you have taken to yourself to believe Cain was incapable?

The original point of contention was vanity as a venue rather than a feature or characteristic of fallen man. What I'm saying is that - irrespective of what was going on in Gen 4:7 - the sin was already there. What is at issue seems to be an increasing inroad as opposed to status quo. I don't see a problem with God using this as an object lesson for Cain - not to overcome sin so much as show him what was there. He did the same thing with Israel.

And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.
Deuteronomy 8:2-3

Unless you want to say God didn't know what was in Israel's heart, this was for their edification - to know what was there. And the whole OT is a proving ground for what God already knows. God is not caught off guard by what is in the heart of man. So to call it a venue is, I think, wrong.

Did Cain not have jealousy of his brother already in his heart? Or the seeds of it? Whatever it was, his very nature brought him to that place of murder.

Who or what was Cain supposed to rule over? I note here that the term for sin is a Hebrew feminine noun. But the passage clearly says "over him".

 

[Cross Reference]

The original point of contention was vanity as a venue rather than a feature or characteristic of fallen man. What I'm saying is that - irrespective of what was going on in Gen 4:7 - the sin was already there.

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law" Romans 5:13 (KJV)

No law __ no sin. Now if you slip that into the Gen 4:7 wording, you should, if you are open to be adjusted in your thinking, see the whole picture. Ergo, "vanity" is not sin but the venue for it.

 

[nikolai_42]

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law" Romans 5:13 (KJV)

No law __ no sin. Now if you slip that into the Gen 4:7 wording, you should, if you are open to be adjusted in your thinking, see the whole picture. Ergo, "vanity" is not sin but the venue for it.

I don't disagree that vanity is not the same thing as sin. Rather, it is a futility that comes from being fallen. But, fundamentally speaking, vanity does not precede sin.

 

[Cross Reference]

Cross Reference;4220588]

I don't disagree that vanity is not the same thing as sin. Rather, it is a futility that comes from being fallen.But, fundamentally speaking, vanity does not precede sin.

It always preceded sin! Do you dismiss the rest on my reply?

Here is rewording of the same Gen 4:7 admonition spoken directly to Cain by God:

". . . . unless you repent, you will perish". Luke 13:3 (ESV)

Apparently you don't want to understand what I have written re Rom 8:20 KJV as being before the fall for the reasons Paul stated and I have reminded you of. Therefore, You will have to come up with something to explain WHY Adam transgressed since there was no sin in him for which the blame could be laid. So how it got there, you will have to solve __ and you can't? To me, mystery is solved.

BTW I take it you must believe God decreed everything?

 

[oatmeal]

Men are bound internally. Their will is internal. It may be acted upon by outside agents, but when we speak of being in bondage to sin, we are talking about something that is already inborn. In that sense, at least, it doesn't matter whether we believe in original sin or that we are simply born with a tendency to sin - either way, the enemy is within.

So when you speak of those who choose (initially) to take drugs, you are dealing with a (largely) external influence. The drug has no hold on the potential user because he has not taken the drug yet. However, even then, there may be other internal influences driving him to take it. So even at that point, his will is not really free (because he is being "made" to want the drug).

Compare that to Adam's situation. Before he took the fruit and ate, it had no sway over him. After, it ruled his life. The same with Eve. And that fall directly affected every man who came after him. Even in the Garden, Adam and Eve were influenced by the serpent. The will is not naturally good. It is formed by lusts and desires and other influences that don't necessarily originate from us. Free will is really not free.

Yes, the first sin introduced corruption into mankind.

Thus we now have to use our free will to overcome that corruption by renewing our minds to God's incorruptible truths.

We can choose to succumb to that corruption or choose to overcome it

We must learn God's word, think God's word and do God's word

But God does not force us to do that, we must exercise our free will to do so

 

[nikolai_42]

Cross Reference;4220588]

[/YELLOW]

It always preceded sin! Do you dismiss the rest on my reply?

Here is rewording of the same Gen 4:7 admonition spoken directly to Cain by God:

". . . . unless you repent, you will perish". Luke 13:3 (ESV)

Apparently you don't want to understand what I have written re Rom 8:20 KJV as being before the fall for the reasons Paul stated and I have reminded you of. Therefore, You will have to come up with something to explain WHY Adam transgressed since there was no sin in him for which the blame could be laid. So how it got there, you will have to solve __ and you can't? To me, mystery is solved.

BTW I take it you must believe God decreed everything?

There was, I believe, a huge change in Adam in the fall. By one man sin entered into the world. And what was going on in that realm, I don't fully understand. But apparently Satan was there before Adam - as he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. But, no. I don't know why Adam did what he did - other than accepting wicked counsel against the command of God.

 

[Cross Reference]

There was, I believe, a huge change in Adam in the fall.

Indeed, He opened the floodgates of hell to invade his soul and the souls of his progeny by way of vanity-self-gratification. The problem is that while he could have had God's power in keeping it closed, he forfeited such divine power by not obeying the one command and in doing so kept the problem of overcoming the temptation to open it for his progeny to deal with, with only promises from God to sustain them. Thus we have this from God spoken to them in so many words: "If you will do this, I will do that and if you do that, I will this."

The flesh being weak, God soon had to repent He ever made man, destroy him and start over with 4 couples conceived in sin. Now, start from there and please explain what God did that did not require Him to "gift" them anything?

Having said all that why not get back to answering this question:

Our salvation, by the will of God or the will of man? ___ http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107856


"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:therefore [you] choose life, that both you and your seed may live" Deuteronomy 30:19 (KJV)

 

[nikolai_42]

There was, I believe, a huge change in Adam in the fall.

Indeed, He opened the floodgates of hell to invade his soul and the souls of his progeny by way of vanity-self-gratification. The problem is that while he could have had God's power in keeping it closed, he forfeited such divine power by not obeying the one command and in doing so kept the problem of overcoming the temptation to open it for his progeny to deal with, with only promises from God to sustain them. Thus we have this from God spoken to them in so many words: "If you will do this, I will do that and if you do that, I will this."

So what was God doing differently from what He did (with respect to Adam and Eve) in the Garden?

It seems to me it comes down to mechanics vs. origins. In mechanics, one can seek the answer in actions. It eventually begs the question "Could Adam and Eve have obeyed?". Continual action (i.e. trying to find the answer in actions) assumes that even if they couldn't, I can. That is where self-trust comes in. But if one looks at it from a fundamental viewpoint (the way things are or were), it's easier to answer the question of why or why not. I honestly can't be certain I know why Adam sinned. But the question of all that are in him (i.e. all mankind) is clearly answered in scripture. Not "if", but categorically - as in Adam all die. We may have had "The soul that sinneth it shall die" as in Ezekiel, but that simply emphasized the fact that the individual was responsible before God - whatever national covenants were in place and whatever judgment God might bring on a people as a whole. That's why righteous men such as Daniel would be saved alone. But even then, these men had a righteousness not (originally) their own. They lived by ever word that proceeded from the mouth of God. That is not an "If you will do this, I will do that" sort of proposition - not in the sense that the Word is quick and powerful itself. It does the work. Not that we are passive bystanders, but it is such a transaction that we are brought into line by the very word that will drive us forward. It may or may not seem like we "do" anything, but the work is all God's. Adam's situation changed radically. And His relationship to God changed at the same time - as with all creation's.

The flesh being weak, God soon had to repent He ever made man, destroy him and start over with 4 couples conceived in sin. Now, start from there and please explain what God did that did not require Him to "gift" them anything?

I don't see a difference between Noah's start and Adam's in that sense. There was no change to man - maybe the earth, but not man. He was still as fallen as Adam (just far fewer in number than the year prior the flood). Just an extension of Cain, Abel and Seth. I'm not sure what else you are driving at here, but the thought occurs to me that one has to recognize whether there is a difference between the Garden in Genesis and the New Heavens and New Earth "wherein dwelleth righteousness" at the other end of time. If righteousness dwells, why does it dwell? Is it just as tenuous as the righteousness Adam must have had in the Garden?

Remember, though...the tree of Life was blocked by flaming swords in Genesis and only opened up again by Christ. Nothing man could do by his own will or effort would do that. And the only reason the swords were there in the first place was Adam's fall. Even his obedience didn't get him that. But this may be infringing upon another thread...

Having said all that why not get back to answering this question:

Our salvation, by the will of God or the will of man? ___ http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107856


"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:therefore [you] choose life, that both you and your seed may live" Deuteronomy 30:19 (KJV)

If memory serves, I'm the last one to respond in our exchange...

 

[Cross Reference]

So what was God doing differently from what He did (with respect to Adam and Eve) in the Garden?

Nothing and nothing had been altered in mans capability for obeying God's commands otherwise He would not have ordered up another series of them to benefit him had he obeyed. Seems you don't know anything about that part of the story. Start with Nimrod and work yourself forward.

 

[ttruscott]

...

By one man sin entered into the world.

...

Excuse me but the verse says THAT BY ONE MAN DEATH AND JUDGEMENT ENTERED THE WORLD ! not sin!!!!

<headshake, falcepalm>

 

[Cross Reference]

Excuse me but the verse says THAT BY ONE MAN DEATH AND JUDGEMENT ENTERED THE WORLD ! not sin!!!!

<headshake, falcepalm>

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:12 (KJV)

 

[andyc]

Men are bound internally. Their will is internal. It may be acted upon by outside agents, but when we speak of being in bondage to sin, we are talking about something that is already inborn. In that sense, at least, it doesn't matter whether we believe in original sin or that we are simply born with a tendency to sin - either way, the enemy is within.

So when you speak of those who choose (initially) to take drugs, you are dealing with a (largely) external influence. The drug has no hold on the potential user because he has not taken the drug yet. However, even then, there may be other internal influences driving him to take it. So even at that point, his will is not really free (because he is being "made" to want the drug).

Compare that to Adam's situation. Before he took the fruit and ate, it had no sway over him. After, it ruled his life. The same with Eve. And that fall directly affected every man who came after him. Even in the Garden, Adam and Eve were influenced by the serpent. The will is not naturally good. It is formed by lusts and desires and other influences that don't necessarily originate from us. Free will is really not free.

From your own logic, you are concluding that the will is free but can be limited to the choices available, even before the fall. If this is the case before the fall also, a sin act may not always be driven by an inner sin propensity.
Therefore we can say that the will is totally free while under no obligation to choose, but also free to choose when weighing up the pros and cons from the options available.
Therefore Adams's disobedience did not lead to an inherited sin propensity, but rather opened the door to multiple choices as a result of our inheriting the knowledge of good and evil from Adam. Children are born innocent of the personal act of sin, because they do not yet have the ability to discern good and evil and are therefore not obligated to make right and wrong choices.

What a lot of people can't seem to get their head around (because doctrine clouds the issue), is that our being born sinners is not because of an inherited a sin nature giving us a propensity for sin, but rather we are born into the world with an ability to discern good and evil. This characteristic of God was illegally obtained by Adam on behalf of mankind, and therefore we inherit the same condemnation and judgement. And so the sin nature has to do with how a person justifies what they know is wrong. For example, we are told that a specific act is morally wrong, but there is a desire to do it. I want to do it, but how can I justify myself for doing it? The sinner finds a way to relax the conscience in order to commit the act.

 

[Cross Reference]

From your own logic, you are concluding that the will is free but can be limited to the choices available, even before the fall. If this is the case before the fall also, a sin act may not always be driven by an inner sin propensity.
Therefore we can say that the will is totally free while under no obligation to choose, but also free to choose when weighing up the pros and cons from the options available.
Therefore Adams's disobedience did not lead to an inherited sin propensity, but rather opened the door to multiple choices as a result of our inheriting the knowledge of good and evil from Adam. Children are born innocent of the personal act of sin, because they do not yet have the ability to discern good and evil and are therefore not obligated to make right and wrong choices.

What a lot of people can't seem to get their head around (because doctrine clouds the issue), is that our being born sinners is not because of an inherited a sin nature giving us a propensity for sin, but rather we are born into the world with an ability to discern good and evil. This characteristic of God was illegally obtained by Adam on behalf of mankind, and therefore we inherit the same condemnation and judgement. And so the sin nature has to do with how a person justifies what they know is wrong. For example, we are told that a specific act is morally wrong, but there is a desire to do it. I want to do it, but how can I justify myself for doing it? The sinner finds a way to relax the conscience in order to commit the act.

Good post! Permit me this adjustment:

"The sinner finds a way to relax the conscience in order to commit the act."

Since there is no warfare there is no battle with his "selfish" disposition made so by his being subjected to vanity that when tempted the door is easily opened for the devil to finish him off.

Whatta ya think?

 

[andyc]

Said this before multiple times, but oh boy people would get a revelation if they grasped this simple fact. Adam was NOT created as a spiritual being. He became a spiritual being when he ate of the forbidden fruit. This is where the majority of theologians go wrong.
Adam was created from the dust of the ground, and became a living being/soul (a physical flesh being). The reason he couldn't discern good and evil like God, is because he wasn't spiritual. Morality is a spiritual quality.
Physical man had dominion over the natural world, God is Spirit. By taking the fruit, Adam (on our behalf) rejected the physical in favor of the spiritual. And therefore everything physical is condemned in Adam.The pursuit of all men now, is a spiritual kingdom. Man must be accepted spiritually with God (made alive to God in the Spirit), enter Christ, in order for us to receive a spiritual kingdom. The kingdom of God.

Calvinism suffers greatly over this point, because if Adam was created righteous and spiritual, he was created with the ability to make moral choices. He would already have the knowledge of good and evil.
And so by sinning he would go from a state of being spiritually righteous, to being unrighteous. This state is irreversible. Calvinists themselves do not understand how this state can be reversed, and so it is left a mystery how God somehow manages it. You see, if a person i totally depraved, they are totally condemned without hope, because you cannot reverse the state of spiritual unrighteousness. This state is permanent.