Can God change his mind?

It's funny how some people are willing to say "I don't know" about some things but not others. Why do we think we have to fully define how an Omniscient God interacts with finite man? Clearly the scripture tells us to ask for things and he will grant them. Clearly scripture speaks of his healing men when the appeal is made. Clearly scripture speaks of God showing mercy on people because of the prayer of his people. Those may not be the same type of "reactions" that you and I would have, but they are certainly presented in scripture as if they are God's genuine reply and response directly to man's appeal. Why undermine that by over complicating it?

 

Free will? Yes, but probably not in the same way you do. I believe man's sin [fallen] nature has a great (adverse) affect on his will. Fallen man is not neutral, which is what libertarian free will would have us believe. The Bible is clear on that (as well as what we see in general revelation of the world around us).

 

So you do or don't believe Adam and Eve could have resisted the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit?

 

Well, I think it is more pertinent to discuss the will of fallen man, since that's what we have to deal with in the here and now.

The Bible doesn't give much insight into the nature of Adam & Eve, other than we know God's creation was "good." How can a good (assuming perfect) creation be inclined towards sin?

Here's an interesting question that is kind of the counterpart to your question on A&E: When the redeemed in Christ get to heaven, will we have free will (as you have defined it - i.e., we can do otherwise in any given moment)? If so, I guess there is the possibility of sin in heaven.

 

I agree, but it helps to establish what your belief is with regard to mankind's nature prior to that Fall. So, do you believe they could have resisted the temptation, and on that same note: Consider the last time you sinned as a believer, could you have done otherwise?

I wouldn't say "perfect" because that would be reserved for God, in my way of thinking about this. Having the ability to sin wouldn't be "perfect." They were sinless and apparently without the knowledge or good or evil.

After the fall God goes through their punishment (labor pains, working the soil) and he never mentions any change in their natural ability to make choices. He only mentions that man is like God in that he knows both good and evil. On what basis do you believe that we have lost whatever ability Adam had to make "free choices?"

Well, I'm not sure how that will work, but I suppose that in heaven their will be no law and no temptation. If there is no law nor temptation I don't see how sin could exist. But this is speculation since the bible is not really specific.

 

Skandelon

This is probably where I differ from everyone here, I do not see a fall in scripture. Man was created good, he was sinless and pure. But at the same time he was created flesh, and the flesh has desires and lusts. It was not just the serpent's lie that caused Eve to sin, it was also her natural desires. Satan appealed to these desires, he always goes for our weakness.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

It is easy to see here that this fruit appealed to Eve's flesh. It looked good for food, so it appealed to the appetite. It was beautiful and appealed to the eyes, it was desired to make one wise and so appealed to the mind and vanity.

And there is not one word about God cursing man's moral nature in the curse he pronounced after they sinned. So how did they change?

The change is they became sinners legally, and the death sentence was imposed upon them. I believe this especially to apply to spiritual death. They were immediately separated from God and hid from him when they heard his voice.

There was also a change in consciousness. Before they were naked and were and not ashamed, much like a small child. They had no conception of right and wrong, and had not before felt guilt.

But there is nothing in the scriptures that says they suddenly were overwhelmed with the compulsion to do evil. It also shows they were able to respond to God when he called them, so I do not see any inability to obey God here.

And Cain had the ability to do either good or evil.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

The word "if" shown twice here shows that Cain had the ability to chose to do either good or evil. And further, God says Cain would rule over sin, so this teaching that man is utterly enslaved to sin is not scriptural.

Man was created flesh, and is still flesh, we see this theme throughout scripture.

Matt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

So, maybe I am wrong, but I do not see this "fall" everyone talks about. I was taught that and believed it myself for years, but when I studied the subject I could not find it in scripture. If anyone has scripture to show that man's moral nature was changed when Adam and Eve sinned, I will be glad to look at it.

 

You are correct. It requires five-point Calvinism to distort Scripture into something it does not say!

 

You go about making these one line quotes about Calvinism. Maybe its time you backup your words with content.

Prove your statement

 

Calvinism proves my statement.

 

Like I said earlier, man is not neutral - our sin nature has an adverse affect on our will. Do you not agree with this (laying aside Total Depravity and all that entails) - that man is not neutral and has a sin nature? The Scriptures are abundantly clear: Eph. 2:1-3 (by nature); Rom. 3 (none seek God); Rom. 5 (enemies); Rom. 6 (slaves to sin); Rom. 7:18 (in the flesh nothing good dwells); I Cor. 2:14 (natural man receives not).

The reason I ask, is that many (you) claim that in order to be truly free, we must have the ability to choose otherwise, else we are the dreaded robots that non-Cals accuse Cals of believing. Well, if that is the case, then I guess we will all be robots in heaven, since we won't have the ability to sin.

And another interesting question - what about Satan? Does he have the ability to do good? I assume most would say no - he can only do evil. If that's true, then I guess Satan does not have true free will by your standards (libertarian) - and by gosh, that's not fair that God would not give him a true free will!

Anyways, I think we've gone down a rabbit trail, and all this deserves its own thread, but I will go back to my statement in post 133 - I don't equate ordaining or decreeing as the same as "making." God doesn't make people sin, He allows them to. And in His allowance of sin, He ordains it to occur - otherwise, He would stop it from happening.

So you can drop the charge that I believe God makes men sin (even after the Fall), anymore than God makes Satan sin (since Satan can only do evil).

 

I believe in original sin. I agree that man is born with a sin nature and enemies of God, but I think its a leap to assume that must mean that man's nature is unable to be influenced by GOD himself sending a powerful message of reconciliation. Faith cometh by hearing.

As I said, I don't know what we will and will not be able to do in heaven, I just said that there would be no law or temptation. Free will is the ability to choose between viable options. If sin is not an option then it wouldn't be possible. But, like I said, we can only speculate.

Libertarian freedom doesn't insist that every choice must be a free one, it only insists that for one to be considered morally accountable or truly free that the agent must have been able to do otherwise. Once someone (like Satan or whoever) has made many "free" choices of rebellion, eventually he becomes hardened in that rebellion. His eyes grown darkened, his heart grows calloused and his ears cannot hear God's truth anymore. Scripture speaks about this process of hardening quite often and even warns us not to allow it to happen to us (Heb 3). If someone is no longer "free" to choose good (like Satan), it is because of his own free choice to rebel in the first place.

So, why did Adam and Eve choose to sin in the garden? They didn't have a sin nature, so that can't be the reason. What "caused" them to sin?

The difference that you seem to ignore is that in my system a free morally accountable creature is NOT born in a state where he cannot see, hear, understand and repent when confronted by God's appeal to be reconciled. In other words, if a lost man is called to faith and repentance so that he might be saved and he rejects it, I believe he could have done otherwise. I believe he could have seen, heard, understood and willingly repented unto salvation. You do not.

So, the question is what "CAUSED" or "MAKES" the man unable to do otherwise? The only answer is "God." I'm trying to show you that by asking you the questions with regard to Adam and Eve's choice to sin in the garden.

 

I would replace "unable" with "unwilling." Sin is man's doing, period, and none of your uncharitable philosophizing can prove otherwise. Your strawman against me that it is "only God" not only doesn't compute with me, it is also quite uncharitable, which is par for the course with many of your posts on here.

 

Looks like he hit a nerve. I have noticed that when someone disputes your definitions you get upset. Another problem with many Calvinists.

 

Nice. This place is lovely.

 

Actually, according to Calvinistic sources it is both, they are unable to be willing, thus this qualification doesn't avoid my argument because there is only one who could "make" or "cause" them to be unable to be willing...that is God. (Why do you think many Calvinist refer to TD as Total Inability, like this source:

Uncharitable? These very points of contention between Calvinist and non-Calvinists have been debated for decades. Why would you think when I bring them to your attention you can dismiss me as being "uncharitable?" I haven't attacked you personally. I've been respectful to you in replying to all your questions and arguments.

With all due respect, could it be you just haven't worked through these arguments before and are unaware how to respond in a way that is consistent with your system?

 

It's true! People here can disagree on many things and have no problem, but as soon as Calvinism is discussed, out come the fangs!

 

Ok, using your logic, you believe God makes people sin too. Since we both believe in man's sin nature after the Fall (though we disagree to its extent) and that man is not neutral (to believe man is neutral is the heretical Pelagian view), then we both believe God is to blame when man sins.

Of course, I say nonsense. You have established nothing of the sort.

I understand we all have disagreements, but it is uncharitable to intentionally create a strawman and attack it - especially one that ascribes such an awful notion that God makes men sin.

If Spurgeon (or any other mainstream Calvinist) were here, would you accuse him of the same thing and tell him that he "hasn't worked through these arguments before"?

 

I agree - it's an ugly sight to see a Christian accuse another Christian of thinking God makes men sin. Ugly indeed. You might as well call that person an unbeliever going to hell. (And I do think that is the sentiment shared by some around here.)

 

Again, there is a very sharp difference between my view and yours. I hold to libertarian freedom, meaning when a man chooses to sin he could have done otherwise. I don't believe a "sin nature" makes people unable to do otherwise, it only means that they are influenced by sin in this world, at odds with God and in need of forgiveness and reconciliation.

I'm trying to establish that it is the result of your system, but you refuse to answer my questions with regard to why Adam and Eve originally sinned. They didn't have a sin nature, so what CAUSED them to sin?

A strawman is assuming an unfounded accusation, but I'm not assuming anything. Instead, I'm attempting to show you why I believe your system ultimately does teach this, but I can't do that if you refuse to participate.

I think they would have already worked through what they believe with regard to these questions and they would provide an answer to my question instead of continually avoiding it or accusing me of being uncharitable for even asking.

I'm not criticizing you for not knowing the answer. There are many questions I don't know the answers to and I admit that. I only criticize those who avoid questions or attack me for asking them as if I'm doing something wrong. Its fine not to know something and to work through your position. I've had to work through these questions before and part of these issues are what lead me away from the Calvinistic system.

 

I recently had a week long discussion with a Calvinist (here and here) who believed just that and he explained why logically this was the ultimate conclusion that all Calvinists would have to come to. I disagree with him obviously, but I only point this out because there are all different types of Calvinists and many various points regarding this discussion. If you are unaware of the divine culpability issues with your system then maybe you should explore them a little further and stop acting sooo shocked by this line of questioning as if they are new to this debate.