Thoughts on Determinism

Alive said:
Anyway, just a couple of thoughts that may be a different way of looking at what is referred to as 'strict determinism'--which is said by some that champion 'free will' as an agent of man for a cause of salvation, to be doctrinal error. In other words, that God does not strictly determine an individual's salvation--via 'election'--that salvation is determined by the choice and will of an individual.

I want to go back to a beginning and look at this.

In order for this to work, a starting condition must have existed and that is that Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall did indeed have a free will. A will free Godward and not bound or encumbered by 'sin'. Adam was not made 'corrupt', but he was made 'corruptible'. I have said a bunch there in order to make two simple points.

1. What 'determined' Adam's future was his choice to break God's commandment to refrain from eating of that tree. The bad one. Secondarily to that choice that 'determined strictly' his future is that that future included 'death' rather than 'eternal Life' represented by the other tree, which is Christ.

2. God 'determined' to 'SAVE' a portion of Adam's fallen race for Himself through the Slain Lamb before any of this started.

In this scenario, we have two instances of a 'strict determinism'.

God did not strictly determine that Adam would choose as he did--Adam's choice did that. Adam lost that 'free will' which had become fully sinful--dead in sin. Dead Godward. A thing that is dead cannot be partially dead and partially alive. This is where we need God's help to understand just how sinful sin is. How utterly dark sin is and cannot mix with the Light--with God.

Knowing this, we can look at how it was necessary that God, now--had to 'strictly determine' by His will to rescue some from that awful state--by the Redeeming work of Jesus Christ--who paid in full the wages of that sin--so that its result which is death does no longer determine fate. Rather Christ's Righteousness and Life is, by God's determination, imputed to His elect.


There is a whole lot in between the lines of the above related to the OP, but I thought it might be helpful to actually think about 'determination' and how it must relate in some form to the doctrinal positions we hold.

Whether as a noun or verb type.
Click to expand...
Doesnt that make the fall a happenstance event? It just happened to trun out that way.
 
Alive said:
That is an interesting contribution and worth thinking about.
It seems you are circling back to a 'strict determinism', which I have no problem with.
Do you think Adam's free will was different before the fall?
Click to expand...
It was only different in the kinds of choices he could make, both good and bad. It was not any more free from God than after the fall.
 
Alive said:
That is not my view. Christ was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, you can only get that understanding from one verse of the Bible (Rev. 13:8), and only from specific translations (KJV, NKJV, NIV) but not others (ESV, NASB, NET, etc.)

Rev. 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (ESV)

The Greek is ambiguous as to whether "before the foundation of the world" modifies "written in the book of life", or "the Lamb who was slain".

Other Scripture informs our decision:

Rev. 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. (ESV)

IMO, it's unwise to be dogmatic about a view based only on a single verse that is ambiguous in meaning.
 
Theo1689 said:
Just so you know, you can only get that understanding from one verse of the Bible (Rev. 13:8), and only from specific translations (KJV, NKJV, NIV) but not others (ESV, NASB, NET, etc.)

Rev. 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (ESV)

The Greek is ambiguous as to whether "before the foundation of the world" modifies "written in the book of life", or "the Lamb who was slain".

Other Scripture informs our decision:

Rev. 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. (ESV)

IMO, it's unwise to be dogmatic about a view based only on a single verse that is ambiguous in meaning.
Click to expand...
An interesting point. I would point to Peter....
1Pet. 1:20 (ESVS) He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
 
Alive said:
An interesting point. I would point to Peter....
1Pet. 1:20 (ESVS) He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
Click to expand...

I agree He was foreknown before the foundation of the world.
But He was slain 2000 years ago.
 
Theo1689 said:
I agree He was foreknown before the foundation of the world.
But He was slain 2000 years ago.
Click to expand...
OK--I see the distinction you are making and of course I agree. I have never thought that He was literally slain before His incarnation, only that it was pre-determined for God's purpose.
Thank you for that...I do not recall ever hearing the point made.
 
Alive said:
Because God after finishing His Creation, including Adam; declared it all to be good and that must include the reality that Adam was made in such a way to 'choose'. That ability to make that bad choice, was also 'good'.
Click to expand...
Woah! Assumption alert!

From where do you get that uncorrupted Adam (without sin and, therefore, without sinful desires) was able to choose evil, without corrupting himself by desiring it first?

And the second assumption is based on the first - that the supposed ability to rebel against God, from an uncorrupt nature that had no sin, was very good.

Which comes first: desire or action?
 
David1701 said:
Woah! Assumption alert!

From where do you get that uncorrupted Adam (without sin and, therefore, without sinful desires) was able to choose evil, without corrupting himself by desiring it first?

And the second assumption is based on the first - that the supposed ability to rebel against God, from an uncorrupt nature that had no sin, was very good.

Which comes first: desire or action?
Click to expand...
Nope. You are saying all of that. I was simply pointing out something God said. The kicker is what we do with it.
1. Adam was made curruptible but not corrupt
2. God said it was all good
3. Adam sinned
4. Adam died
 
Alive said:
Nope. You are saying all of that. I was simply pointing out something God said. The kicker is what we do with it.
1. Adam was made curruptible but not corrupt
2. God said it was all good
3. Adam sinned
4. Adam died
Click to expand...
This is all fine; but it's a cut down version of what you've been posting, minus the controversial parts; however, for the purpose of our discussion, the controversial parts are the ones that matter.

Gen. 3:1-6 (WEB)
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any animal of the field which the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees of the garden,
3 but not the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

4 The serpent said to the woman, “You won’t surely die,
5 for God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took some of its fruit, and ate; and she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate it, too.

Here we see Eve rejecting what God had said, believing the devil instead, indulging in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, DESIRING the tree, to make her wise, THEN she committed the evil act. That's about five or six (depending on how you count them) sinful, corrupting thoughts, including desire, before the sinful act occurred.

Adam, as we know from elsewhere, was not deceived; so he rebelled, knowing that he was doing wrong to the God with whom he had fellowship and that this wrong would lead to his death. Are you seriously going to claim that he had no desire to eat the fruit (none at all); but that he accepted it from his wife, in a state of complete neutrality towards the fruit (then how did he decide to accept it?), knowing what he did? I'm sorry, but that beggars belief.
 
Alive said:
In order for this to work, a starting condition must have existed and that is that Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall did indeed have a free will. A will free Godward and not bound or encumbered by 'sin'. Adam was not made 'corrupt', but he was made 'corruptible'. I have said a bunch there in order to make two simple points.

1. What 'determined' Adam's future was his choice to break God's commandment to refrain from eating of that tree. The bad one. Secondarily to that choice that 'determined strictly' his future is that that future included 'death' rather than 'eternal Life' represented by the other tree, which is Christ.

2. God 'determined' to 'SAVE' a portion of Adam's fallen race for Himself through the Slain Lamb before any of this started.

In this scenario, we have two instances of a 'strict determinism'.

God did not strictly determine that Adam would choose as he did--Adam's choice did that. Adam lost that 'free will' which had become fully sinful--dead in sin. Dead Godward. A thing that is dead cannot be partially dead and partially alive. This is where we need God's help to understand just how sinful sin is. How utterly dark sin is and cannot mix with the Light--with God.

Knowing this, we can look at how it was necessary that God, now--had to 'strictly determine' by His will to rescue some from that awful state--by the Redeeming work of Jesus Christ--who paid in full the wages of that sin--so that its result which is death does no longer determine fate. Rather Christ's Righteousness and Life is, by God's determination, imputed to His elect.
Click to expand...
This is how I started this OP to point out a few things interesting to me to think about and discuss.
Points 1 and 2.
Later, we discussed Adam's freedom to choose before the fall as being unencumbered by sin. I stand by that and that God made him 'good'.

I think it interesting to think about 'determinism' in the context suggested.

I get all of what you are saying. I don't see parsing the when and how precisely as needed. Eve sinned and Adam rebelled....sure things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top