Total Depravity

[The Author of my Faith]

How would you give a simple, but thorough explanation to someone who asked you "Why did God make man with the ability to become totally depraved?".

Does the bible address the reason WHY God made man with the ability to sin? Is this one of the questions that really cannot be answered since it is trying to understand why God does what he does? Is this a "Who are you O man to answer back to God" kind of question?

Please keep it simple I am trying to answer a friend as best I can and though I am a student of the word I still am by no means a scholar.

 

[ewenlin]

I think we discussed something along this line here.

 

[OPC'n]

How would you give a simple, but thorough explanation to someone who asked you "Why did God make man with the ability to become totally depraved?".

Does the bible address the reason WHY God made man with the ability to sin? Is this one of the questions that really cannot be answered since it is trying to understand why God does what he does? Is this a "Who are you O man to answer back to God" kind of question?

Please keep it simple I am trying to answer a friend as best I can and though I am a student of the word I still am by no means a scholar.

Ok, my . God did not create us to sin since that would make Him evil. I believe He withheld His attribute of perfection from Adam and Eve. He made them innocent of any sin but not perfect. Perfection denotes accomplishing an act without flaw or in their case without sin. As soon as their temptation confronted them, they were without perfect ability to overcome the temptation and fell. So I don't think of sin as something created by God and added to mankind's nature just waiting to be preformed, but instead a lack of something in mankind's nature that being perfection. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Skyler]

How would you give a simple, but thorough explanation to someone who asked you "Why did God make man with the ability to become totally depraved?".

Does the bible address the reason WHY God made man with the ability to sin? Is this one of the questions that really cannot be answered since it is trying to understand why God does what he does? Is this a "Who are you O man to answer back to God" kind of question?

Please keep it simple I am trying to answer a friend as best I can and though I am a student of the word I still am by no means a scholar.

He made Adam and Eve "free" in the sense that they could choose either good or evil. He did this, knowing that they would fall, and that he could then show forth the attributes of grace and mercy. It's inherently for His glory.

 

[OPC'n]

I don't believe anyone has ever had a free will including Adam and Eve. That would have put God out of control of what would happen and left it up to Adam and Eve. Even now we are assigned good works which were decreed from before the foundations of the world. We will do them bc God has decreed it and not because we choose to do them....Eph 2:10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

-----Added 8/22/2009 at 02:55:12 EST-----

He made them innocent of any sin but not perfect. Perfection denotes accomplishing an act without flaw or in their case without sin. As soon as their temptation confronted them, they were without perfect ability to overcome the temptation and fell.

I disagree. God made everything perfect, in the beginning, especially and including man. Theoretically, they could have (as far as their ability went) overcome the temptation, because they were not inclined toward sin, but obedience to God. This is one thing that made the fall so devastatingly bad. A man, created perfect, holy, and inclined toward good, who still fell. How much more so we who have that nature of sin already in us!

So I don't think of sin as something created by God and added to mankind's nature just waiting to be preformed, but instead a lack of something in mankind's nature that being perfection. Hope that makes sense.

Respectfully, sin was actively brought into this world by an act of disobedience to God's command, not by a lack of something.

Many reformed believers believe that they were only made innocent not perfect. We find our perfection in Christ's work.

 

[toddpedlar]

Sarah -

We do will things... it's in our nature. Our will is free - not in the autonomous sense, but everything we choose we do so because we want to, according to our nature and the limitations that places on us, and not because we are compelled by some external force. When God decrees, he does not manipulate. Adam and Eve were decreed to sin - AND they did so freely, of their own volition. You should check the WCF on this point, chapters 4 and 9 in particular.

Adam and Eve were created with every resource they needed to reject the temptation to sin. There was no flaw in them that meant that being presented with a temptation they could not help themselves. They willfully sinned and did so despite the fact that as creatures without sin there was no necessity that they sin. After the fall, there is necessity, because we are flawed with a sinful nature that is different than that of Adam and Eve. See chapter 6 for this.

 

[OPC'n]

I'm not going to argue with you guys on this.

 

[Hippo]

God created Man in the certainty under his divine decree that they would fall, become totally depraved and those he elected would be saved so as to glorify himself.

In order for God to be gloryfied in the way he desired he decided that he would save man monogistically, which required that man be totally depraved. In that way salvation was all to the glory of God with none of the work of salvation giving glory to man.

 

[Confessor]

I think it's fairly clear that Sarah's aversion to free will is not to the notion that man is free but to the notion that man always possesses the libertarian brand of freedom. She is certainly in accord with the Reformed understanding of man's freedom.

As for whether Adam and Eve were created perfect, I cannot maintain that. Every effect has an efficient cause, and if they sinned, then they could not have had morally perfect characters prior.

 

[Skyler]

Sarah,

You're equivocating on two different definitions of "free will"--the freedom to choose either good or evil, and the freedom to make choices independently of any outside influences.

The latter is what men do not have, while the former is what I(and, I believe, the WCF) was referring to in saying that Adam and Eve had free will.

 

[Confessor]

I think the problem here is the conflation of perfect and immutable. They are not the same. Neither are immutable and imperfect. Adam and Eve were created perfect in that they were complete (i.e. as to how God wanted them to be created). They were morally perfect, inclined toward obedience to God's Law, etc., not merely neutral or just free.

If you want to define "perfect" like that, I guess that's okay, but I would personally find such a definition misleading. It is obvious in the first place that Adam and Eve were created as God wanted them to be created, and therefore to call them perfect simply because they are in accord with God's decretive will seems odd, perhaps superfluous.

Also, we will be in a superior moral state compared to Adam and Eve when we are glorified, in which case Adam and Eve couldn't accurately be called perfect, as perfection implies the impossibility of improvement. That is why I define moral perfection as including the inability to sin.

 

[Confessor]

They lacked nothing to fulfill God's commands.

Are you familiar with Jonathan Edwards's distinction between natural ability and moral ability?

 

[Skyler]

They lacked nothing to fulfill God's commands.

Are you familiar with Jonathan Edwards's distinction between natural ability and moral ability?

I think what we're trying to point out is that Adam and Eve were both naturally able and morally able to obey God's commands, but sinned instead.

 

[Confessor]

They lacked nothing to fulfill God's commands.

Are you familiar with Jonathan Edwards's distinction between natural ability and moral ability?

I think what we're trying to point out is that Adam and Eve were both naturally able and morally able to obey God's commands, but sinned instead.

The point I was about to make is that it is impossible to be both naturally and morally able to do something, and not do it.

Or, to put it another way, per the definition of freedom, we never freely perform an action unless we desire to do it. Therefore, in some manner or another, Adam had to desire to fall, but obviously he could not have chosen this desire. Every effect has an efficient cause.

 

[Skyler]

Are you familiar with Jonathan Edwards's distinction between natural ability and moral ability?

I think what we're trying to point out is that Adam and Eve were both naturally able and morally able to obey God's commands, but sinned instead.

The point I was about to make is that it is impossible to be both naturally and morally able to do something, and not do it.

Or, to put it another way, per the definition of freedom, we never freely perform an action unless we desire to do it. Therefore, in some manner or another, Adam had to desire to fall, but obviously he could not have chosen this desire. Every effect has an efficient cause.

Well, it wasn't impossible for him to be tempted. Since he had both the ability to choose to sin and to choose not to sin, when temptation came, there was a clash of interests. So yes, he did have a desire to fall--but he had the ability to overcome that desire and chose not to.

 

[Confessor]

So yes, he did have a desire to fall--but he had the ability to overcome that desire and chose not to.

I think this is at root an appeal to a libertarian notion of freedom. This can be shown by asking the following: Did he have a moral ability to overcome his desire to fall? If so, then how did he possibly fall? If not, then he had only a counterfactual ability not to fall (i.e., if his desires had been different), not any kind of real or absolute ability not to fall.

 

[Skyler]

So yes, he did have a desire to fall--but he had the ability to overcome that desire and chose not to.

I think this is at root an appeal to a libertarian notion of freedom. This can be shown by asking the following: Did he have a moral ability to overcome his desire to fall? If so, then how did he possibly fall? If not, then he had only a counterfactual ability not to fall (i.e., if his desires had been different), not any kind of real or absolute ability not to fall.

So if person X has a real or absolute ability to do Y, he must of necessity do Y at some point or another?

 

[Confessor]

So yes, he did have a desire to fall--but he had the ability to overcome that desire and chose not to.

I think this is at root an appeal to a libertarian notion of freedom. This can be shown by asking the following: Did he have a moral ability to overcome his desire to fall? If so, then how did he possibly fall? If not, then he had only a counterfactual ability not to fall (i.e., if his desires had been different), not any kind of real or absolute ability not to fall.

So if person X has a real or absolute ability to do Y, he must of necessity do Y at some point or another?

Not given the libertarian schema, but given the compatibilist schema, yes. An action can be carried out if and only if the agent has the natural ability to do the action and the desire to do it. If he has both, he'll do it; if he doesn't, he can't do it.

 

[toddpedlar]

So yes, he did have a desire to fall--but he had the ability to overcome that desire and chose not to.

I think this is at root an appeal to a libertarian notion of freedom. This can be shown by asking the following: Did he have a moral ability to overcome his desire to fall? If so, then how did he possibly fall? If not, then he had only a counterfactual ability not to fall (i.e., if his desires had been different), not any kind of real or absolute ability not to fall.

Ben -

I think you're making too much of nothing.

Adam was created with the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He chose upon temptation to cave. This does NOT mean he was, as unregenerate man is, unable not to sin. Adam was created with the ability to obey God's commands and to be confirmed in his state of innocence, and rewarded with eternal life. He failed that test - not for inability, but because he chose to disobey God. I'm not sure what you're going after with what Skyler said - his remark was perfectly reasonable.

 

[Confessor]

So yes, he did have a desire to fall--but he had the ability to overcome that desire and chose not to.

I think this is at root an appeal to a libertarian notion of freedom. This can be shown by asking the following: Did he have a moral ability to overcome his desire to fall? If so, then how did he possibly fall? If not, then he had only a counterfactual ability not to fall (i.e., if his desires had been different), not any kind of real or absolute ability not to fall.

Ben -

I think you're making too much of nothing.

Adam was created with the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He chose upon temptation to cave. This does NOT mean he was, as unregenerate man is, unable not to sin. Adam was created with the ability to obey God's commands and to be confirmed in his state of innocence, and rewarded with eternal life. He failed that test - not for inability, but because he chose to disobey God. I'm not sure what you're going after with what Skyler said - his remark was perfectly reasonable.

I have more work to do in defining and conceptualizing how "moral ability" operates. Thanks for your post, Todd.

 

[Confessor]

Thanks, Todd, for getting across what I apparently failed miserably in doing. It's difficult to discuss such weighty matters while also driving.

You're driving?

 

[toddpedlar]

Thanks, Todd, for getting across what I apparently failed miserably in doing. It's difficult to discuss such weighty matters while also driving.

You're driving?

He's got prehensile earlobes, so he doesn't need two hands to operate his i-Phone.

 

[Confessor]

Thanks, Todd, for getting across what I apparently failed miserably in doing. It's difficult to discuss such weighty matters while also driving.

You're driving?

He's got prehensile earlobes, so he doesn't need two hands to operate his i-Phone.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

Free Will

So What is the Reformed View for fallen man. I am getting confused in certain things I read. I hear some say fallen man does not have free will. His will is enslaved to his sinful nature therefore any action is influenced by sin therefore his will is not "free will" but he is free to make choices according to the ability his nature enables him.

Others say man is free and able to make free will choices and accountable to God.

So is his will free or is it not?

I don't believe anyone has ever had a free will including Adam and Eve.

Then you are out of accord with the Westminster Standards.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 21: Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first created him?

Answer: Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.

 

[A.J.]

So What is the Reformed View for fallen man. I am getting confused in certain things I read. I hear some say fallen man does not have free will. His will is enslaved to his sinful nature therefore any action is influenced by sin therefore his will is not "free will" but he is free to make choices according to the ability his nature enables him.

Others say man is free and able to make free will choices and accountable to God.

So is his will free or is it not?

I think the Westminster Confession gives a thorough answer to your question. And this is the confessional Reformed view.

Chapter 9. Of Free Will.

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.a

a. Deut 30:19; Mat 17:12; James 1:14.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God,a but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.b

a. Gen 1:26; Eccl 7:29. • b. Gen 2:16-17; 3:6.

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;a so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,b and dead in sin,c is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.d

a. John 15:5; Rom 5:6; 8:7. • b. Rom 3:10, 12. • c. Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13. • d. John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-5; Titus 3:3-5.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,a and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;b yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.c

a. John 8:34, 36; Col 1:13. • b. Rom 6:18, 22; Phil 2:13. • c. Rom 7:15, 18-19, 21, 23; Gal 5:17.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.a

a. Eph 4:13; Heb 12:23; 1 John 3:2; Jude 1:24.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

So What is the Reformed View for fallen man. I am getting confused in certain things I read. I hear some say fallen man does not have free will. His will is enslaved to his sinful nature therefore any action is influenced by sin therefore his will is not "free will" but he is free to make choices according to the ability his nature enables him.

Others say man is free and able to make free will choices and accountable to God.

So is his will free or is it not?

Then you are out of accord with the Westminster Standards.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 21: Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first created him?

Answer: Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.

His freedom of will is a limited freedom, in that he's "free" to act as he so chooses; however, the truth is he will only choose that which is evil, because he is, by nature, totally depraved. On the other hand, Adam & Eve were not sinful by nature. They were created upright, and inclined toward godliness. So there's a difference between Original Adam & Eve and all other people born to woman of man.

So then he does not have free will. If his will is limited it is not free then is it. A prisoner is free to walk about anywhere within the prison but he is still confined to the prison and cannot chose to walk outside the prison unless someone sets him free.

So to say he is free when his freedom is depedent upon the other faculties such as his nature and desires then isn't his will subject to those faculties thus not being free??

I am just trying to make sense of this.

 

[toddpedlar]

His freedom of will is a limited freedom, in that he's "free" to act as he so chooses; however, the truth is he will only choose that which is evil, because he is, by nature, totally depraved. On the other hand, Adam & Eve were not sinful by nature. They were created upright, and inclined toward godliness. So there's a difference between Original Adam & Eve and all other people born to woman of man.

So then he does not have free will. If his will is limited it is not free then is it. A prisoner is free to walk about anywhere within the prison but he is still confined to the prison and cannot chose to walk outside the prison unless someone sets him free.

So to say he is free when his freedom is depedent upon the other faculties such as his nature and desires then isn't his will subject to those faculties thus not being free??

I am just trying to make sense of this.

But there is no difference between will and desire. Will is not some autonomous thing within you which is opposed to desire.

The example of a prisoner in prison is not apt because the constraint in prison is EXTERNAL to the prisoner. The prisoner is not free because the boundaries and limits are imposed by someone else.

In our case, WE are the only limitation to ourselves. Every single choice we make is free in that never is a decision made under compulsion. We ultimately do everything that we truly want to do - every decision is made (admittedly under different critiera depending on the circumstances) according to what we most want to do, and according to what we ultimately decide to do.

You are right when you say we are not free - but you are right only because you define freedom as autonomous freedom (meaning there is NO constraint)... but there is no such freedom. GOD HIMSELF is not free in that sense. He is every bit as much as we are constrained by His nature. We are as free as it is possible to be. (Arminian thought, though, wants to make us MORE free than it is possible to be, and even more free than God is)

 

[The Author of my Faith]

His freedom of will is a limited freedom, in that he's "free" to act as he so chooses; however, the truth is he will only choose that which is evil, because he is, by nature, totally depraved. On the other hand, Adam & Eve were not sinful by nature. They were created upright, and inclined toward godliness. So there's a difference between Original Adam & Eve and all other people born to woman of man.

So then he does not have free will. If his will is limited it is not free then is it. A prisoner is free to walk about anywhere within the prison but he is still confined to the prison and cannot chose to walk outside the prison unless someone sets him free.

So to say he is free when his freedom is depedent upon the other faculties such as his nature and desires then isn't his will subject to those faculties thus not being free??

I am just trying to make sense of this.

But there is no difference between will and desire. Will is not some autonomous thing within you which is opposed to desire.

The example of a prisoner in prison is not apt because the constraint in prison is EXTERNAL to the prisoner. The prisoner is not free because the boundaries and limits are imposed by someone else.

In our case, WE are the only limitation to ourselves. Every single choice we make is free in that never is a decision made under compulsion. We ultimately do everything that we truly want to do - every decision is made (admittedly under different critiera depending on the circumstances) according to what we most want to do, and according to what we ultimately decide to do.

You are right when you say we are not free - but you are right only because you define freedom as autonomous freedom (meaning there is NO constraint)... but there is no such freedom. GOD HIMSELF is not free in that sense. He is every bit as much as we are constrained by His nature. We are as free as it is possible to be. (Arminian thought, though, wants to make us MORE free than it is possible to be, and even more free than God is)[/QUOTE]

SO then we are not free. I feel this is a war on semantics. If man's will is contrained by his nature then it is not free will. Correct? I understand that a prisoner is contrained by outward. I get that part. I understand Adam had free will. But it seems i keep hearing "yes you have free will but it is contrained free will" Well that is not free will then. My brain is about to explode LOL!!



-----Added 8/25/2009 at 03:41:41 EST-----

His freedom of will is a limited freedom, in that he's "free" to act as he so chooses; however, the truth is he will only choose that which is evil, because he is, by nature, totally depraved. On the other hand, Adam & Eve were not sinful by nature. They were created upright, and inclined toward godliness. So there's a difference between Original Adam & Eve and all other people born to woman of man.

So then he does not have free will. If his will is limited it is not free then is it. A prisoner is free to walk about anywhere within the prison but he is still confined to the prison and cannot chose to walk outside the prison unless someone sets him free.

So to say he is free when his freedom is depedent upon the other faculties such as his nature and desires then isn't his will subject to those faculties thus not being free??

I am just trying to make sense of this.

But there is no difference between will and desire. Will is not some autonomous thing within you which is opposed to desire.

The example of a prisoner in prison is not apt because the constraint in prison is EXTERNAL to the prisoner. The prisoner is not free because the boundaries and limits are imposed by someone else.

In our case, WE are the only limitation to ourselves. Every single choice we make is free in that never is a decision made under compulsion. We ultimately do everything that we truly want to do - every decision is made (admittedly under different critiera depending on the circumstances) according to what we most want to do, and according to what we ultimately decide to do.

You are right when you say we are not free - but you are right only because you define freedom as autonomous freedom (meaning there is NO constraint)... but there is no such freedom. GOD HIMSELF is not free in that sense. He is every bit as much as we are constrained by His nature. We are as free as it is possible to be. (Arminian thought, though, wants to make us MORE free than it is possible to be, and even more free than God is)

SO then we are not free. I feel this is a war on semantics. If man's will is contrained by his nature then it is not free will. Correct? I understand that a prisoner is contrained by outward. I get that part. I understand Adam had free will. But it seems i keep hearing "yes you have free will but it is contrained free will" Well that is not free will then. My brain is about to explode LOL!!

[/QUOTE]

So is it safe to say that when we are Born Again we gain back our Free Will?

 

[toddpedlar]

SO then we are not free. I feel this is a war on semantics. If man's will is contrained by his nature then it is not free will. Correct? I understand that a prisoner is contrained by outward. I get that part. I understand Adam had free will. But it seems i keep hearing "yes you have free will but it is contrained free will" Well that is not free will then. My brain is about to explode LOL!!

In the sense of complete autonomy, i.e. that your will is governed by NOTHING, then that is correct. We do not have free will. But then neither does God.

So is it safe to say that when we are Born Again we gain back our Free Will?

Absolutely not. We do not change one whit in regard to how free our will is. What changes in regeneration is our nature, and thereby what changes is that which governs our will. We are able to choose good, whereas previously we could do nothing but sin.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

SO then we are not free. I feel this is a war on semantics. If man's will is contrained by his nature then it is not free will. Correct? I understand that a prisoner is contrained by outward. I get that part. I understand Adam had free will. But it seems i keep hearing "yes you have free will but it is contrained free will" Well that is not free will then. My brain is about to explode LOL!!

In the sense of complete autonomy, i.e. that your will is governed by NOTHING, then that is correct. We do not have free will. But then neither does God.

So is it safe to say that when we are Born Again we gain back our Free Will?

Absolutely not. We do not change one whit in regard to how free our will is. What changes in regeneration is our nature, and thereby what changes is that which governs our will. We are able to choose good, whereas previously we could do nothing but sin.

So if I was trying to explain to somoene who is arminian what Free Will is and without trying to lose them in terminologies would I be safe to say to them "we do not have free will because our will is subject to our sinful nature and we can only do what our nature enables us to do"?