1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Single Predestination

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by ivdavid, Dec 19, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    Only if you presume the absence of human choice.
     
  2. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm not even focusing on man but just God Himself. Isn't it an internal inconsistency in God's nature to first pre-decree that the non-elect be condemned and then reveal His desire that they repent and live? If God had not revealed any such desire for them to repent and live, as with the non-elect angels, then it is consistent. But how can God desire in contradiction with what He has counselled in Himself earlier?
     
  3. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    To the extent that he grants freedom to other determining agents who may choose differently than he desires them to.
     
  4. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Like I said, I'm not even going there to considering how man chooses against God. My question is - Can God desire against His own choices?

    If God makes a self-contained sovereign choice to elect some for redemption, can He then desire in Himself not to show them mercy or to not use them as a vessel of honor? None of man's choices involved in God's initial choosing nor His later desiring - all completely within Himself. Can this be possible and consistent?
     
  5. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    It's called sin. Even as Christians, we grieve the Holy Spirit, even thought God will not tempt us beyond our ability.

    No, but that's not the question I've raised. The question is, can God empower another agent to chose something he desires him not to?

    But even these questions are irrelevant in the grand scheme. Maybe we just can't and shouldn't expect to understand the mind of God. And maybe we should not base our theology on our own human take on the mind of God.

    Not after he's logically made the choice, no, at least in my thinking. \

    This is your view, but I don't know if it's true. Maybe God, within his sovereignty, did react to the foreknown decision of another agent.

    For instance, do you believe God foreknew Adam would sin and reacted to it with his plan of redemption, or do you believe God determined Adam to sin?
     
  6. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, Absolutely.
    I'm sorry, what question did you raise? I was thinking we were following my question thread - and I was simply narrowing the scope of consideration to only God in order to conclude that God cannot desire against His own sovereign choices.
    When expanding the scope to include man's choices, most definitely God can decree man's choices to go against His own desires - but still, never His own desires against His own preceding sovereign choices.

    Agreed. I do think it's safe to explore God's revelations to the extent of what He's revealed in Scriptures. It is my belief that the Scriptures are wholly sufficient to negate any addition or subtraction by man.

    I was merely commenting on the hypothetical question I'd posed just prior to this statement - that there was none of man's choices involved in that question meant to conclude that God cannot desire against His own sovereign choices.

    Neither. I believe God foreknew there would be sin but without considering any specific sins of any particular man like Adam etc. And God reacted to this generic foreknowledge of sin with His plan of redemption through election of man - not considering any good or evil of man that God could very well foreknow but chose not to factor in His election so as to make it absolutely sovereign and impartial.
    One could say God's decree to create man in the flesh in itself was a decree of God to permit the fall - but in no way being a direct causing Adam to specifically sin.
    And God's foreknowledge of generic sin is based off His own nature - God knows that any creature that is not God will inevitably and eventually fall short of the glory of God.
     
  7. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    Why is this relevant? Not following.

    LOL! Sorry, that's some amazing nuancing, but let's explore. Okay, so God knew Adam would sin, but did not take into account the specific sin when reacting to the sin? Am I copying you? I'm sure you have reasons for being this nuanced.

    So by "in the flesh" you seem to be implying Adam was created with an inevitable propensity toward sin?

    So then Adam's fall was inevitable, thus Adam was created with a sin nature of sorts? That's very problematic in my view. Very similar to the pelagian heresy.
     
  8. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yep. Clarified below.

    I mentioned it briefly. Expanding,

    Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

    Infralapsarianism takes the majority calvinist position on this which places election after the decreed fall in view of Adam's sin. Supralapsarianism counters this on the basis of the above Rom 9:11 stating election must be placed before any man's good or evil, including adam's sin. But they then concede the implication that God causatively decrees adam's sin Himself. I reconcile both the supras' and infras' problem by placing election after the decreed fall in view of generic sin and before any man's (adam's) specific evil. I've elaborated on generic sin below -

    Yes and No. Adam was created good in the flesh, so No - not saying he was created in sinful flesh.

    The generic sin view is what I've understood from a brief synopsis of karl barth's doctrine of creational entropy - that's just fancy terms for a simple idea: It takes God to be God. The moment God creates any creature with self-determinism, that becomes a Not-God creature which, even when created good, will inevitably fall short of the glory of God.

    God decrees it this way so that He can reveal all the glory of His attributes in the face of the creature's self-deterministic failures - so that the creature denies self and puts on God's nature until fully conformed to His image, becoming gods in the final resurrection where there is no more possibility of sin and sorrow.

    The elect angels were perfectly preserved from the fall by God working out holiness in them throughout to manifest His attributes. The non-elect angels perfectly fell because God decreed them to be self-deterministic to contrast against the creature's attributes. Having demonstrated God vs Self before the fall, God continues the same contrasting given the fall. And we see elect man is perfectly redeemed from the fall to manifest God's attributes in redeeming the creature whereas non-elect man remains fallen by his own self-determinism to contrast against the creature's attributes.

    What I meant by "in the flesh" is not to say they were created evil. The flesh became sinful only after the fall - it was sinless before the fall when it was created good. But given that it is the self-nature, it will inevitably fail at choosing the Father's will over its own self-will. So Yes, he was created with an inevitable propensity toward sin just by definition of who God is and how the self-deterministic creature is not God.
    Again, the angels were created ministering spirits but God chose to create man in perishable flesh, dust unto dust - that's God revealing His specific preparation for His redemption work in man alone by birthing again the soul of man in the spirit that can be spotless and have eternal life while the sinful outer flesh can be condemned and destroyed (Rom 8:3). We can see from His creation what God purposed and designed.

    Adam's fall was inevitable, yes. Unless of course God's nature was operative in him throughout as with the elect angels.
    No, Adam was not created with a sin nature - he was created good as explained above.
    Please tell me what needs further clarification.
     
  9. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    Which is a contradiction. Yes, I realize you've couched it with different terms, but in essence you believe Adam was created with a sin nature—a nature that would inevitably sin. You make a distinction, but it's a distinction without a difference.

    And this is very close to the pelagian view. He argued that there was little difference between pre and postlapsarian Adam.
     
    #189 Calminian, Jan 2, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2020
  10. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you define a sinful nature as one that would inevitably sin, even before it has sinned? I don't.

    Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
    This is how I define a sinful nature - a nature that has sin dwelling in it.
    Before the fall, Adam's nature had no sin dwelling in it - therefore not a sinful nature. After the fall, indwelling sin makes it a sinful nature. Isn't that distinction plenty with a difference?
    Also, I'm not too familiar with Pelagian views - a cursory reading now only showed he doesn't believe in original sin. And that's not the issue at hand, right? Because my view upholds original sin completely. So, could you share some links to read up on what you mean by comparing this to pelagian heresies?

    And back to your definition - if you believe Adam had a nature that wouldn't inevitably sin, was it just happenstance or unfortunate circumstances that led to him sinning? Do you believe there is the possibility that another person in the garden might have acted differently and not sinned? What is your position on original sin?
     
  11. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Again clarifying, in case you've defined this sin nature to be what calvinism terms a totally depraved nature. I see total depravity as a nature that cannot but sin - it continually sins.

    What I mean by a nature that would inevitably sin is not that it continually sins but down the road at some point it would inevitably commit sin and fall. It cannot remain perfect forever - just not possible. I do not hold Adam's nature to be totally depraved before the fall.

    Hope this helps if this was the misunderstanding - I had written enough in my post though to avoid this takeaway, unless you only skimmed to the end :) . And if this is not the issue, then I'd need more details to process.
     
  12. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    Yes, a sin nature is a nature that inevitably produces sin. You are arguing that, by nature, Adam was destined to disobey. It was natural for him to do so. Very difficult to split hairs and not call that a sin nature.
     
  13. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is not even unique to me - this is what everyone who believes in the doctrine of original sin must hold to, right?

    What is the alternative? Are you saying there was a scenario possible where Adam, created as he was, never sinned throughout eternity? That's not possible given 1Cor 15.

    The fall will happen in any other scenario apart from the final resurrected kingdom of God where every creature is upheld perfectly in Christ (Eph 1:10).
     
  14. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    I don't know why you believe what you believe. And I'm sure others believe what you believe. I just don't have any reason to believe that Adam did not have the freedom to obey God, mainly because I don't believe Adam was created with a sin nature. Genesis 1:31 says everything God made, including Adam and Eve, was "very good."

    Do you believe the book of Genesis as written? Do you take it literally? Maybe that's part of the problem.
     
  15. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which is precisely why I do not hold Adam being born with a sinful nature - where I now have to qualify the nature as not having any indwelling sin at creation. This is me literally reading the Genesis account of them being created very good.

    I completely believe adam did have the freedom to obey God. He freely chose to disobey. I'm only saying that self-willed creatures will eventually freely choose to disobey because at some point, if not now, they will prioritize their own self-will above the Father's will under corresponding circumstances. For them to constantly freely choose to obey God forever and ever, they will have to be God.
    Which is why I keep asking you - Are you saying there was a scenario possible where Adam, created as he was, never sinned throughout eternity? It would help me understand your position if you answered this.

    Again, I am not debating you in hostility - I am only trying to find the point of discord.
     
  16. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    You've created a scenario where prelapsarian Adam had a penchant toward sin, but you refuse to call it a sin nature because of the can of worms that would cause. But I don't see any viable difference.

    Then if that's the case, Adam had the choice not to sin, and therefore this sin was not inevitable. In my view, you cannot have it both ways.

    Yes, I know this position well, and I believe this is true of the natural fallen man today. You do realize that there is no difference? This is why I'm telling you you've made a distinction without a difference. There is no difference, practically speaking, between your pre and postlapsarian Adam. They both had a nature that guarantees sin.

    Perhaps you believe we're more sinful that Adam, kind of like the semipelagianism view, but that's merely a difference in degree. He still has a sin nature, as you describe it.

    I don't see any reason why not. When God restores all things, we will not sin for eternity. So we know it's possible. And we know Creation was called, "very good" originally.

    You're fine, David, and I think we've found it. We disagree on the nature of prelapsarian Adam. And we disagree on what constitutes a sin nature.
     
  17. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I do distinguish between the following -
    1. a nature that is created good, but with the potential to freely sin eventually.
    2. a nature that is totally depraved after falling in sin, with the continual propensity/penchant to sin
    3. a nature that is good and with no potential to sin forever.

    These correspond to Adam, all humans born of Adam and God respectively.

    This is the point of discord I find in your position.

    Don't you see the fact that we will not sin for eternity in the final resurrection is only because we will be conformed to the image of Christ, gathered in Him alone? What's the point of birthing us again now in the spirit (God's nature) - is it not to show the futility of our Nature1 and Nature2 above so that we put all our hope only on Nature3 for eternal life?

    How do you understand the literal text commanding us to deny self if we are still going to be restored as the same self-willed creatures in the Final kingdom as it was in the garden initially?
     
  18. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    Potential means it can happen but is not inevitable.

    IOWs inevitable.


    Of course. But don't you see that the last Adam was only necessary, because the first Adam fell? Had the first Adam not disobeyed, we would have lived for eternity.

    You're actually distorting Genesis and with that distorting the Gospel message.

    BTW, what do you believe about Genesis? Do you hold to 6 days? Young earth?
     
  19. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sure. I must qualify it as inevitable only under certain circumstances.
    Satan was good until he saw God walking with the lesser created man and woman. I suppose the potential to sin wouldn't have been realized if he was not made to choose between consciously indulging his dormant self-pride.
    The woman was good until she was deceived. I suppose the potential to sin wouldn't have been realized if she had been created immune to deception preventing the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and pride of life.
    The man was good until he was made to choose between God's command and instigated rebellion. I suppose the potential to sin wouldn't have been realized if he'd been found in better circumstances.

    Then again, I do acknowledge you hold that each of them could've chosen differently in those exact circumstances. That's where we'd disagree. What is chosen is strictly contingent upon the sum total of man's beliefs, understanding, circumstances and probably many more factors at a given time. So repeat the same scenario a thousand times, and you'd get the same result. You may believe that it's like a random roll of the die - that adam could've chosen differently in those exact circumstances, but roll the same die at the same angle and same forces on the same surface any number of times and you'll get the same number. That's inevitable to me - choices are not arbitrary in a vacuum.

    Since I believe God will never purpose any design of creation that renders the last Adam possibly unnecessary, I cannot agree with you.

    Come now, you're overreaching. I thought we were having a normal discussion of beliefs and you suddenly escalate? I too believe you are grossly mistaken on the concept of freewill but I don't pronounce you accursed.

    Sure. How is this relevant to what we're discussing again?
     
  20. Calminian

    Calminian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    798
    Where is this in Scripture? How does you know Satan was good until he saw that?

    But to your point, the circumstance under which Adam sinned was a single command to obey. If you say Adam had no choice at that point, then he had a sin nature.

    I suppose you also believe Satan's fall was inevitable.

    I would disagree with you here. Eve ceased to become good when Adam sinned. Adam is the cause of the fall, not Eve. They both experienced the effects of the fall after Adam ate.

    Eve was made from Adam's body, thus she was adam (human). The entire human race comes from Adam, therefore it bears his name. Eve was not birth by Adam, but was made from his body. And we know from Scripture that she was deceived, while Adam was not.

    Yes, definitely. What you're describing is a prelapsarian sin nature. I reject that, and think it harms the Gospel account. This is one of the reasons I think Genesis is relevant to any soteriology discussion.

    I'm surprised you don't think Genesis is relevant. Do you believe that alternate views of Genesis, day age, gap theory, etc. are harmful to the Gospel?

    I think you place too much emphasis on philosophy. It doesn't matter what we think God should have done or would have done. It only matters what He's revealed, and he revealed his creation was very good.

    We are just discussing. I'm being honest with you, which is what I would think you want from me. A prelapsarian sin nature is a serious error. Yes, I realize you deny this by calling it something different, but I don't think that changes anything.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...