# Adam free to fall?



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

Milton says Adam was free to fall in the sense that God did not ordain his sin and that Adam had ultimate human self-determination. Was Adam free to fall?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 14, 2005)

If my study has been correct, Adam had that freedom until he chose to sin. From that point on we were sinners (original sin) in need of redemption. Humanity now has NO total human self determination.


----------



## cupotea (Nov 14, 2005)

I'm pretty sure Calvin said so, too(I'd love to check, but I don't have my books with me). Man _was_ free until stupid Adam decided to sin. Now we're all slaves to sin. Except for those of us with grace.


----------



## Robin (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Milton says Adam was free to fall in the sense that God did not ordain his sin and that Adam had ultimate human self-determination. Was Adam free to fall?



It has been said: 

"in all of human history - there have been only three people with true, freedom of the will: Adam, Eve and Jesus. And we know what Adam and Eve did with theirs." ----- anon.



Robin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 14, 2005)

See Thomas Boston's _Human Nature in Its Fourfold State_ regarding the state of innocency.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Milton says Adam was free to fall in the sense that God did not ordain his sin and that Adam had ultimate human self-determination. Was Adam free to fall?



Would you mind posting the reference to where Milton said this.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

<P><FONT size=5><U>Paradise Lost</U> Book 3, 56-134</FONT></P>
<P>Now had the Almighty Father from above,<BR>From the pure Empyrean where he sits<BR>High Thron'd above all highth, bent down his eye,<BR>His own works and their works at once to view:<BR>About him all the Sanctities of Heaven<BR>Stood thick as Starrs, and from his sight receiv'd<BR>Beatitude past utterance; on his right<BR>The radiant image of his Glory sat,<BR>His onely Son; On Earth he first beheld<BR>Our two first Parents, yet the onely two <BR>Of mankind, in the happie Garden plac't,<BR>Reaping immortal fruits of joy and love,<BR>Uninterrupted joy, unrivald love<BR>In blissful solitude; he then survey'd<BR>Hell and the Gulf between, and Satan there <BR>Coasting the wall of Heav'n on this side Night<BR>In the dun Air sublime, and ready now<BR>To stoop with wearied wings, and willing feet<BR>On the bare outside of this World, that seem'd<BR>Firm land imbosom'd without Firmament,<BR>Uncertain which, in Ocean or in Air.<BR>Him God beholding from his prospect high,<BR>Wherein past, present, future he beholds,<BR><FONT size=5>Thus to his onely Son foreseeing spake. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=5>"Onely begotten Son,</FONT> seest thou what rage<BR>Transports our adversarie, whom no bounds<BR>Prescrib'd, no barrs of Hell, nor all the chains<BR>Heapt on him there, nor yet the main Abyss<BR>Wide interrupt can hold; so bent he seems<BR>On desparate reveng, that shall redound <BR>Upon his own rebellious head. And now<BR>Through all restraint broke loose he wings his way<BR>Not farr off Heav'n, in the Precincts of light,<BR>Directly towards the new created World,<BR>And Man there plac't, with purpose to assay <BR>If him by force he can destroy, or worse,<BR>By some false guile pervert; and shall pervert<BR>For man will heark'n to his glozing lyes,<BR>And easily transgress the sole Command,<BR><FONT size=5>Sole pledge of his obedience: So will fall, <BR>Hee and his faithless Progenie: whose fault?<BR>Whose but his own? ingrate, he had of mee<BR>All he could have; I made him just and right,<BR>Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.<BR>Such I created all th' Ethereal Powers <BR>And Spirits, both them who stood and them who faild;<BR>Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.<BR></FONT>Not free, what proof could they have givn sincere<BR>Of true allegiance, constant Faith or Love,<BR>Where onely what they needs must do, appeard,<BR>Not what they would? what praise could they receive?<BR>What pleasure I from such obedience paid,<BR>When Will and Reason (Reason also is choice)<BR>Useless and vain, of freedom both despoild,<BR>Made passive both, had servd necessitie, <BR>Not mee. <FONT size=5>They therefore as to right belongd,<BR>So were created, nor can justly accuse<BR>Thir maker, or thir making, or thir Fate,<BR>As if predestination over-rul'd<BR>Thir will, dispos'd by absolute Decree <BR>Or high foreknowledge; they themselves decreed<BR>Thir own revolt, not I: if I foreknew,<BR>Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,<BR>Which had no less prov'd certain unforeknown.<BR></FONT>So without least impulse or shadow of Fate, <BR>Or aught by me immutablie foreseen,<BR>They trespass, Authors to themselves in all<BR>Both what they judge and what they choose; for so<BR>I formd them free, and free they must remain,<BR>Till they enthrall themselves: I else must change<BR>Thir nature, and revoke the high Decree<BR>Unchangeable, Eternal, which ordain'd<BR>Thir freedom, <FONT size=5>they themselves ordain'd thir fall.</FONT><BR>The first sort by thir own suggestion fell,<BR>Self-tempted, self-deprav'd: Man falls deceiv'd <BR>By the other first: Man therefore shall find grace,<BR>The other none: in Mercy and Justice both,<BR>Through Heav'n and Earth, so shall my glorie excel,<BR>But Mercy first and last shall brightest shine. </P>


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

<P><FONT color=#bf0000><STRONG>MY AXIOM:</STRONG> <FONT size=5><FONT color=#000000>T</FONT><FONT color=#000000>he king's heart is<FONT color=#0000bf> a stream of water</FONT> in the hand of the Lord; </FONT><FONT color=#707070><STRONG>he turns it wherever he will.<BR></STRONG></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

<FONT color=#008000 size=5><STRONG>This applies to angels, pre-fall Adam/Eve, unredeemed fallen man, and blood-bought believers.</STRONG></FONT>


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

<P><FONT color=#bf6000 size=4><STRONG>THEREFORE, Milton is in error, not only about the nature of the God-head (he denies the trinity, etc.), but also about the nature of the will and of the sovereignty of God over all things.</STRONG></FONT></P>


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

Do I have any dissenters?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

Yes, I dissent. Milton, is writing a poem, not a systematic theology.
Even scripture holds each of us accountable for our sin.

And, it was indeed Adam's sin that brought death and guilt upon every one of us. Even though God ordained the fall, it is not an error to say Adam ordained his own fall by free choice as well.

1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

And as far as the charge of Arianism goes, I think I have answered this before on this board, but here are a few quotes by Milton.


(of Christ)


> . . . Thron'd in highest bliss
> 
> Equal to God, and equally enjoying
> 
> God-like fruition, (3.305-7)





> Thee next they sang of all Creation first,
> 
> Begotten Son, Divine Similitude,
> 
> ...






> Effulgence of my Glory, Son belov'd,
> 
> Son in whose face invisible is beheld
> 
> Visibly, what by Deity I am, (6.680-82)



The few places in _De Doctrina Christiana_ where he innacurately explains that Christ is not the same essence of the Father may not be indicative of His later beliefs. Also, his interest in theology and written works where he expresses himself on theological issues, do not neccessarily make John Milton a theologian.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

Dear brother, you mistake. 

1) Milton was writing a systematic theology, because his views of God in the poem coincide with those in his other writings.

2) Adam did not ordain his fall. Adam did not have ultimate self-determination, nor did anyone in all eternity and time except the triune God alone.

3) Free choice is an illusion. Choices exist. Only God has free, unordained and uncaused choices that originate in the counsel of His good pleasure.

4) We are accountable to what God ordains and causes, regardless of the supposed freedom in our choices. Scripture holds two axioms: we are accountable for our choices; God ordains and causes and purposes ALL things, even sin, though He did not create sin, He did orchestrate it. 

5) Also, God is just and righteous and clean in all of His ordaining, causing, orchestrating and play-writing. We are the guilty actors. He is the thrice Holy playwrite.

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

> One work that Milton wrote but never published was a theological treatise called De Doctrina Christiana ("On Christian Doctrine"). It is for the most part straightforward Protestant theology, but includes some departures from the mainstream position, and Milton carefully labels them as such. First, and most seriously, Milton was an Arian. That is, he believed that the Father exists eternally, and that He begat the Son (and "before he was begotten, he was not"), and that the Son then created the physical universe. Thus, the Son is far from being a mere human. He is the second greatest of all things. But he is not co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, and is not, in the fullest sense, God. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/13.html



Milton was a heretic.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

Matthew,

I was speaking of Adam's freedom not ours. (_posse peccare, posse non peccare_)

_Paradise Lost_ expresses reformed theology very well. Both Adam and God ordained the fall in a different way.

I never said anything contrary to your points 4 & 5.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

> One work that Milton wrote *but never published* was a theological treatise called De Doctrina Christiana ("On Christian Doctrine"). It is for the most part straightforward Protestant theology, but includes some departures from the mainstream position, and Milton carefully labels them as such. First, and most seriously, Milton was an Arian. That is, he believed that the Father exists eternally, and that He begat the Son (and "before he was begotten, he was not"), and that the Son then created the physical universe. Thus, the Son is far from being a mere human. He is the second greatest of all things. But he is not co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, and is not, in the fullest sense, God. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/13.html



I have thousands of notes and essays in my filing cabinet. I sure hope when I die, nobody will take those unpublished works too seriously, or in any way indicitave of my entire worldview.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

> His point of view is entirely subjective and individualistic; his faith is deduced from Scripture by the inner illumination of the Spirit, not tied to human traditions. It is not therefore surprising to find him taking his own view on the Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, predestination, the creation of the world, etc., as also in regard to practical questions such as marriage, infant baptism, and the observance of Sunday.
> 
> What he attempts to give is not a complete scientific treatment in the modern sense but an exposition of the clear and universally acceptable teaching of Scripture. In many points he is the prophet and herald of a new era, a Protestant individualist and idealist, as well as a typical figure for the revolutionary cause to which he devoted the best powers of his life.
> http://artzia.com/History/Biography/Milton/



Milton's heresy was motivated by his desires for autonomy from the laws of marriage.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

I will grant your last point on its unpublished nature. Nonetheless, Milton's God is human, reactionary, and impotent.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 14, 2005)

I know nothing of Milton other than someone here sure dislikes him.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> I will grant your last point on its unpublished nature. Nonetheless, Milton's God is human, reactionary, and impotent.



Your vehemence regarding his orthodoxy seems one-dimensional. By your standards C.S. Lewis would also be a heretic. Milton wrote a sublime epic poem, and was a logodaedalist of the english language.

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

Milton attempts to "justify God" as though God needs justification beyond that given in Romans and in other places in Scripture. He does it in such a way that makes God's eternal decree look impotent, His knowledge non-causal. Milton's God does not cause or predestine or ordain all things:



> They therefore as to right belongd,
> So were created, nor can justly accuse
> Thir maker, or thir making, or thir Fate,
> As if predestination over-rul'd
> ...



[Edited on 11-14-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Milton attempts to "justify God" as though God needs justification beyond that given in Romans and in other places in Scripture. He does it in such a way that makes God's eternal decree look impotent, His knowledge non-causal. Milton's God does not cause or predestine or ordain all things:
> 
> 
> ...



When I have the time I will post some other quotes where he contradicts this. He was not perfect, and as I said, no worse than C.S. Lewis. You write a poem that long and be totally consistent and get back to me okay.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

Milton was a genious. He was possibly the most brilliant scholar ever to grace the planet. His supposed contradictions are not contradictions. His writing is always intentional, and seeks to justify Milton's ungodly acts, not God's acts. I do not appreciate your attack of my viewpoint based on my lack of scholarliness. I claim Milton is the scholar (far superior in breadth to you or me). I claim Milton is in error. I claim our freedom-oriented society bears the pain God ordained and caused through Milton's free-will heresy.

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

> I claim our freedom-oriented society bears the pain God ordained and caused through Milton's free-will heresy.



I think it might have more to do with men like Finney and Darby than Milton.
How many people today do you think read Milton? Arminianism is wrong but hardly damnable. It is usually believed from a naive understanding of antropology and the scriptures. Many saints have lived and died within this error.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

> I think it might have more to do with men like Finney and Darby than Milton.
> How many people today do you think read Milton? Arminianism is wrong but hardly damnable. It is usually believed from a naive understanding of antropology and the scriptures. Many saints have lived and died within this error.



Agreed. But, maybe our culture used to read Milton?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

Yes. We should still read him in spite of the difficulties. We should also read Donne, and Dante, and Virgil, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles . . . 

All the classics.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

Agreed. But, maybe not. Maybe we should lean more heavily on adopting a more Hebrew form of education, rather than a Greek one? Maybe the Word of God should be central, not the classics?


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

<TABLE height=0% cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=1 width="99%" border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR bgColor=#336666>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc height="2%">
<DIV align=center></DIV></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%">
<DIV align=center><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=2><B>Ancient Greek Education</B></FONT></DIV></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%">
<DIV align=center><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=2><B>Ancient Hebrew Education</B></FONT></DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc height="2%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=2><B>Goal</B></FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Prepare individuals to serve the state.</FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Prepare individuals to serve God.</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc rowSpan=6><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=2><B>How<BR>Accomplished</B></FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" height="11%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>1)Memorize the laws of Lycurgus, the Spartan lawgiver.<BR>(2) Memorize selections from Homer. <BR>(3) Develop physical excellence through games, exercises, and the pentathlon (running, jumping, throwing the discus, casting the javelin, and wrestling). </FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>(1) Transmit knowledge and skills from generation to generation. <BR>(2) Increase knowledge and skills. (3) Concretize cultural values into accepted behavior </FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" height="2%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Teach students to trust the state.</FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Teach children to trust God in everything. </FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" height="1%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Prepare for the state.</FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Prepare for eternity.</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" height="8%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Examine the world by classifying whole things into parts-removing them from the Creator. Redefine knowledge: Final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance.</FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Look at God's world as a whole-interconnecting-revealing God in every area. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmaments sheweth his handywork (Psalms 19:1). </FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" height="3%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Immerse students in literature written by Greek philosophers. </FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Teach children to love learning so they will become self-motivated, lifelong learners.</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" height="6%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>Focus on self-esteem, emotional adjustment, and external training of the body. Develop endurance, resourcefulness, and physical prowess. </FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>Discover a child's God-given gifts and talents, and develop them to their fullest potential. Focus on spiritual training. </FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc height="5%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=2><B>Result</B></FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>Self-centered. My will be done. Violence, p0rnography, racial tensions, promiscuity, abortion, infantcide, etc. </FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>God-centered. "Thy will be done." Authority with responsibility. Literacy, strong family ties, love of learning, security, independent thinking, high morals and values. </FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc height="6%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=2><B>Curriculum<BR>Subjects</B></FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>Humanism<BR>Evolution<BR>Social Studies</FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>Bible<BR>Creation Science<BR>His Story (true history)<BR>Character<BR>Self-Government (internal obedience to God)</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc rowSpan=2><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=2><B>Curriculum<BR>Content</B></FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" rowSpan=2>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>Trivium, the three stages: </FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>1. Grammar<BR>2. </FONT><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>Logic (Dialectic)<BR>3. </FONT><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>Rhetoric</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%" rowSpan=2>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>The three main orders of study in ancient Israel consisted of:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>1. Religious education<BR></FONT><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>2. Occupational skills<BR></FONT><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>3. Military training</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=1>with the basis of all knowledge being the fear of the Lord (Psalms 111:10; Proverbs 1:7). </FONT></P></TD></TR>
<TR></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc height="3%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=2><B>Curriculum Text</B></FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Books by Homer, Aristotle, Virgil, Pliny, Cicero. </FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>God's Word. Orthodox schools did not study subjects derived from Classical tradition. </FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc height="2%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=2><B>Heroes</B></FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Homer, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno</FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joshua and David.</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width="19%" bgColor=#99cccc rowSpan=2><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#000000 size=2><B>Philosophy</B></FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" height="5%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Lawlessness: To each his own. <BR>Look out for #1.<BR>There are no absolutes. </FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>Lawfulness: <BR>Love one another.<BR>The last shall be first.<BR>Deny thyself.<BR>Obey the Commandments.</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="39%" height="23%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1><I>That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord</I> (Isaiah 30:9).</FONT></TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="42%"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1><I>Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord´s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well</I> (1 Peter 2:13-14</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Agreed. But, maybe not. Maybe we should lean more heavily on adopting a more Hebrew form of education, rather than a Greek one? Maybe the Word of God should be central, not the classics?



God chose Hebrew to begin with, and then as His progressive revelation continued, around 250 bc He ordained 70 scholars to translate the old testament into the best language for His word. And the new testament followed in that same tongue. 

Christianity was started in the graeco-roman backdrop of western civilisation for a good reason.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

So, a mixture of the two?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

I do not know really. I was moderately poking the snake with that last comment.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

Fine with that.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 14, 2005)

It is not incompatible with freedom (Adam _was able_ to sin) to say that God foreordained man's fall. Our first parents were left to the freedom of their own wills. _Our will_ is not free to do good until it is renewed. But it is supremenly free to do bad. Yet, God foreordains all of our free acts, both before and after we are given a new ability _to do good._

Adam fall was free and uncoerced. He was not tricked. He was not inclined or _pushed_ (as some wag would say). Yet, his fall was as certain as every other event of God's universe. No event, of greater or less import, has ever been less certain or more certain. In the comprehensive sense, God's decree is a single whole.

Jesus was free. He was supremely free. And a willing subject to do all his Father's will. There is no possibility that Jesus could have sinned. He was divine. That did not prevent his temptation. In fact, it is true to say that no one in all history faced greater, more real, and more intense temptation than Jesus Christ. Only Jesus held out against every and all temptation, and vanquished Satan, forcing him to flee at every encounter. He did that for 33 1/2 years. We have never held out for a single day. Or hour. We have seldom felt a temptation's full effect, for each time we fail we have given in before the temptation has evanesced. Not Jesus. That, to name only one thing, makes him a superior federal head than Adam.

We will be free in heaven too. We will freely and always choose good, just as the wicked freely and always choose evil (ever since the fall). We will not be able to sin. But no less free.

We, in the basic sense, are not any different from our first parents, or the angels, or the demons, or Jesus, or the saints in glory. We are all free according to our nature's allowance.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 14, 2005)

Amen Bruce.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Amen Bruce.





As to Milton's views on God's sovereignty and the fall of man, I concur with what Samuel Johnson wrote in his _Life of Milton_: "His theological opinions are said to have been first Calvinistical, and afterwards, perhaps when he began to hate the Presbyterians, to have tended towards Arminianism." 

There is a level of ambiguity in _Paradise Lost_ that allows both Calvinists (Joseph Moody McDill's _Milton and the Pattern of Calvinism_, 1942) and Arminians (Dennis Richard Danielson's _Milton's Good God_, 1982) to claim him. 

I think Milton's attempt to justify the ways of God to men goes awry in a number of respects in part because an attempt to put words in the mouths of God the Father and Son and others apart from the Bible necessarily lead to confusion and in part because Milton himself seems to have swayed back and forth between the two camps of Calvinism and Arminianism. 

_Aeropagitica_, written in his Presbyterian phase, is very much a reflection of Arminian theology: "Many there be that complain of divine Providence for suffering Adam to transgress. Foolish tongues! When God gave him reason, he gave him freedom to choose, for reason is but choosing; he had been else a mere artificial Adam, such an Adam as he is in the motions. We ourselves esteem not of that obedience, or love, or gift, which is of force; God therefore left him free." 

_Paradise Lost_, written late in life, it seems to me, can be taken either way. As art, that is entirely acceptable; as theology, that is disastrous. He certainly was a genius. _Paradise Lost_ is worth a lifetime of study. But I would not rely on it for sound theology.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 14, 2005)

Mr. Buchanan, 

Define freedom.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 14, 2005)

The ability to do what you want.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 14, 2005)

How about the ability to do what is right. Everybody does what he wants.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 14, 2005)

Of course freedom to do righteousness is a freedom that you can only predicate of people with the ability to want to do righteousness.

There are degrees of freedom. I am not defining freedom absolutely. I don't think it proper. I won't define freedom to be "free to do anything conceivable." I'm not free to go out and shoot at passing cars. Not just because it's unlawful. Or because I don't have a gun. But because it would require a total personality change. I cannot want to go shoot at passing cars. I'm not free?

Is this some kind of restriction on my liberty? Do I go complain to God because he's restricting me? Freewillists think a person isn't free unless he can do or desire things he has no desire to do nor ability to do. That is an absurd stance.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 15, 2005)

Not even God is "free to do anything conceivable." God is not free to lie.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

> <P>There are three basic positions concerning man's choices: <B>determinism, indeterminism, and self determinism.</B> Determinism is the belief that all of man's actions are the result of antecedent factors or causes. Naturalistic determinists, such as Thomas Hobbes and B F Skinner, argue that man's behavior can be fully explained in terms of natural causes.<B> Theistic determinists, such as Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards, trace man's actions back to God's controlling hand.</B> The opposite position to determinism is indeterminism. On this view there are no causes for man's actions, antecedent or otherwise. The final position is<B> self determinism, or free will. This is the belief that man determines his own behavior freely,</B> <STRONG>and that no causal antecedents can sufficiently account for his actions....</STRONG></P>
> <P>Another form of determinism is theistic determinism. This is the view that all events, including man's behavior, are caused (determined) by God. One of the more famous advocates of this view was the Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards. <STRONG><FONT size=4>He maintained that the concept of free will or self determinism contradicted the sovereignty of God. If God is truly in control of all things, then no one could act contrary to his will, which is what self determinism must hold. Hence, for God to be sovereign he must cause every event, be it human or otherwise.</FONT></STRONG>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=4>Edwards also argued that self determinism is self contradictory. For if man's will were in equilibrium or indifferent to any given event or decision, then his will would never act. Just as a scale cannot tip itself unless an outside force upsets the balance, so man's will could never act unless God moved it. Thus to speak of human acts as self caused would be like speaking of nothing causing something. But since every event must have a cause, self determinism, which denies this, must be self contradictory.</FONT></STRONG>
> <P>During Edwards's own day some thinkers objected to his view on the grounds that it ran contrary to the biblical evidence which supported human freedom (e.g., Prov. 1:29 - 31; Heb. 11:24 - 26). <STRONG><FONT size=4>Edwards responded in his Freedom of the Will that human freedom is not the power to do what one decides but rather what one desires. The cause of man's desires is God, and man always acts in accordance with them. Thus freedom is not uncaused, which is nonsensical, but caused by God.</FONT></STRONG></P>
> http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/determin.htm



Thoughts?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 15, 2005)

Scripture teaches that human beings when regenerate sometimes have moral freedom, usually have compatibilist freedom, but never have libertarian freedom.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

I find the concepts of compatibilist/moral freedom arbitrary and unhelpful. If they are useful, can you please define them in terms of desire and causation?


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

A follow-up question: Should we examine/hypothesize, like Milton did, of pre-fall, or post-resurrection life?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 15, 2005)

I doubt that Edwards ever will be answered from within the believing Christian community. Edwards' calvinistic reliance on the sovereignty of God makes his case virtually impregnable, however rationalist it seems to students of intellectual history.

Atheists may have a go at him, but eventually their arguments will come down to their basic presuppostion: "I don't believe in God." Then they have the problem of justifying their use of logic, inference, rationality, etc. etc. etc.


----------

