I must disagree. satan's efforts certainly lead to evil in our world. We are fooled all the time into making bad decisions. Just like with Harley's point about Eve. If Eve made an informed free will choice to disobey God, then why did Adam get all the blame? Scripture does not support, without a wild interpretation, that Eve and Mary are mirrors in the way that Adam and Christ were. Scripture is clear that sin came through only Adam. (More on your quote later.)
Thus, scripturally, there is no need to specifically qualify our will as free any more than there is a need for the Bible to specifically use the term Holy Trinity for both to be true and obvious to all (except to Calvinists).
I appreciate your position of necessity to say that an evidence of truth is that something is NOT in the Bible. :).
No, Calvinists fully believe that we must reject God. You confirmed that in the very next sentence "In fact, we're born to do it." If we are born to reject God, we do not reject God willingly. That much we agree. But once made aware of God, you continue to believe that, by virtue of our nature, we must reject Him unless He compels us otherwise. At no point do Calvinists admit that man, by virtue of his intellect, chooses God or chooses to continue to reject God.
We are born with a sin nature, through Adam. On our own, we are doomed and have no chance of salvation. No manner of intellect is enough to freely choose God on our own. If you believe that it is our intellect that makes the difference (final decision), then you believe in a man-centered theology. More power in man, less power in God. We reject that and believe in a God-centered theology. God is sovereign and He ordains the nature of the universe and all of its inhabitants (including their actions), according to His good, pleasing, and perfect will.
You say that if we are born to reject God, we do not reject God willingly. You imply that we think God forces us to sin. None of this is correct. Generally speaking, we act according to our nature. IIRC, you do not believe in the sin nature of man, but the Catholics and the rest of us do.
The sin nature IS the absolute will to reject God. It cannot be overcome on our own, and an offer is still not enough. To believe that man's intellect can overcome it is, again, a man-centered theology.
Our intellect, as opposed to our nature, to choose to sin comes into play after salvation, for sin happens, even though we have a regenerated heart, and God is not the author of evil. So, the intellect comes into play, but it is not for good. We experience our intellect working for good after salvation, but the root of it all is still God.
Now, we are born without the knowledge of God but, when God knocks (repeatedly) on our hearts, by virtue of our nature we tend to reject God, but by virtue of our intellect, we are free to either reject or accept His love, a decision we make freely because He endowed us with that freedom.
As of the post I am responding to, no one has yet to answer my question about whether this free will choice is done with full information. Does God knock on everyone's heart equally, since God loves everyone? If so, then whose intellect would choose hell over heaven? It doesn't make sense.
I look at it as I would look at an addiction. ... But help can come only when you, in your mind, freely decide, by virtue of your intellect, that the addiction (no matter how good it feels) is wrong, and wish to overcome it. You then seek help because it is impossible to overcome on one's own. It is only then that we realize that help was always there.
What percentage of addicts, do you suppose, use their intellect to decide they need help, and then accept it? Not very many, right? Is that how you see the narrow path, based on intellect? Who gives us our intellect? Doesn't God bless some more than others with intellect? Is this God's love for all?
This all goes back to my original objection to Calvinism, namely that denying free will by necessity denies the possibility of evil (and makes evil, sin, and the need for our redemption meaningless). By necessity, our actions, then, are simply an extension of God's will. Since God cannot choose evil, the fact that evil exists, proves that theory false.
No, the false part is your assertion that denying free will denies the possibility of evil. You won't distinguish between free will to do good in God's eyes, and free will to do evil. God is only good, not evil. Therefore, God can cause us to do good, whether it is in our salvation, or good works thereafter. God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things. This view is perfectly consistent within itself.
"God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things."
In other words, he is in control of all things other than whether we do evil or not. We agree with that. :-)
I must disagree. satan's efforts certainly lead to evil in our world. We are fooled all the time into making bad decisions [FK]
FK, the only difference between us and animals is that we have reason. Reason is the only source of free will because it is capable of acting in concert or against our needs.
Without reason, your decisions are made by necessity (of your nature). Animals do not know God and do no sin (willingly against him). Intelligent creatures (angels, demons, humans) all know God, and it is through this knowledge that sin becomes possible: when we act, by virtue of our reason, against God.
If Eve made an informed free will choice to disobey God, then why did Adam get all the blame?
Because in the Bible "man is the head of a woman" and he takes the blame, and the credit. But, we don't act or agree or do what's in the Bible nowadays, do we? For instance, there are few women in Churches whose heads are covered, and that is decreed in the New Testament. And Protestants have women "bishops" whereas the NT says that a bishop (always referred to as a male) shall be a "husband of one wife..." etc.
Gos specifically told Adam not to eat of the tree, and it was Adam's responsibility to make sure Eve knew that as well. But she was "given" to Adam and therefore Adam is portrayed as someone who carried the responsibility for both of them. She could say "I was fooled," but Adam listened to her, someone who was supposed to listen to him, and that was his downfall: he was irresponsible in addition to being arrogant and proud.
We are born with a sin nature, through Adam
I hear this over and over and wonder what that means. We are born spiritually separated from God. God gave us body and soul. Bodies have needs. Our needs are not in themselves sinful but how we go about satisfying them that is -- our intent and direction. We can't change our body, but we can restrain it with our mind, our intellect, our reason. Some do, and some don't. No matter how you turn it, it's always your intellect that makes a difference whether you sin or not.
No manner of intellect is enough to freely choose God on our own
God gave us intellect to make choices, FK. If He didn't want us to use it to edify or mortify ourselves with it, he would have left us without it. It's not man-centered anything: it's being what God made us, body and soul.
I think you are confusing intellect with being intellectual, educated. Nonsense. We all know God's laws because they are inscribed in our hearts; we are all subject to God's laws, because by our reason we know good from evil. By knowing what is not good and choosing evil we commit sin.
You imply that we think God forces us to sin. None of this is correct
Yet God is in full control and ordains our steps? Did God not 'set up' the whole scenario in the Garden of Eden so that Adam would fall, as Harley D implies? What do you call that, FK?
IIRC, you do not believe in the sin nature of man, but the Catholics and the rest of us do
Our nature is corrupted with our will. We have a propensity to sin because our will is not always in harmony with the will of God. In fact, it almost never is! By we are the authors of our decisions, knowing good from evil, and therefore of evil, on a daily basis.
You won't distinguish between free will to do good in God's eyes, and free will to do evil
Oh, I do make that distinction very much so! We know what is good and what is evil; God made sure we do by inscribing His laws in our hearts, by revealing Himself to man. We choose evil not because its evil, but because it seems good. We convince ourselves that it is good or good enough. Just as Eve "saw that the fruit was good to eat." We make tose decisions daily, FK, when we jump from one lane going 90 mph to another in between cars and barely miss a collision. As you watch people do things you ask yourself "what were they thinking?" Surely they know better. but they choose to do the wrong thing because when people make decisions they don't ask "is this what God would want me to do?"
"Does God knock on everyone's heart equally, since God loves everyone? If so, then whose intellect would choose hell over heaven?"
The Fathers certainly tell us that God does exactly this, with the possible exception of a remark or two from +Augustine which are outside the consensus patrum.
+Anthony the Great in the 3rd century AD wrote:
"He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."
+John Chrysostomos taught:
"It is not God who is hostile, but we; for God is never hostile."
We are free to accept or reject God's grace yet without that grace we can do absolutely nothing to effect our theosis. Thus, without limiting the power of The Spirit to go wither it will, we believe that the uncreated energies of God which we receive at baptism enable, but do not require, us to respond to God's grace and live in accordance with His commandments and thus become further strengthened and more like God by grace. As +Symeon the New Theologian says:
"The roof of any house stands upon the foundations and the rest of the structure. The foundations themselves are laid in order to carry the roof. This is both useful and necessary, for the roof cannot stand without the foundations and the foundations are absolutely useless without the roof - no help to any living creature. In the same way the grace of God is preserved by the practice of the commandments, and the observance of these commandments is laid down like foundations through the gift of God. The grace of the Spirit cannot remain with us without the practice of the commandments, but the practice of the commandments is of no help or advantage to us without the grace of God."
This grace is with us from the beginning of our existence:
"For truly the assistance which God gives to our nature is provided to those who correctly live the life of virtue. This assistance was already there at our birth, but it is manifested and made known whenever we apply ourselves to diligent training in the higher life and strip ourselves for the more vigorous contests." +Gregory of Nyssa
You ask why anyone would reject this grace and since people clearly do, the teachings of the Fathers must be nonsense. The fact is, FK, that people don't "choose" hell; they choose to reject God because becoming like God is difficult. It requires that we reject our nature. The Evil One is a great liar who tells us that God, because He is all merciful and loving, will ignore our choices to reject Him and that those choices will have no consequences. But when we come to the end of our earthly lives and find that we have cut ourselves off from God and have no hope, when we find ourselves tormented by the same love which surrounds others who made other choices to cleave to God, the Evil One reminds us that God's "justice" is inexorable.
Both were to blame, not just Adam. You are incorrect to say that HE got all of thet blame...
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Tim 2:13-14
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Cor 11:3
The only reason why Paul mentions Adam in Romans 5 as being responsible for sin is that he is representative of mankind, being the prototype. In the first creation, we take on the attributes of this first man - esp. his propensity to sin. When made a new creation through the second man, Jesus, we take on HIS nature, the propensity towards holiness - as now, we have within us a new Spirit. Paul, in 1 Cor 15 and Rom 5 makes this comparison - not to exclude Eve from her part in the first sin, but because Paul is making an comparison and drawing out the effect that being in Christ means. Just as we are like Adam, we will be like Christ
The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor 15:47-49
There is no need to mention Eve for Paul to make his point. What IS interesting is that less than 100 years later, people ARE making connections between Mary and Eve.
Generally speaking, we act according to our nature. IIRC, you do not believe in the sin nature of man, but the Catholics and the rest of us do.
Catholics don't believe that man has a "sinful" nature. We have a PROPENSITY to sin as a result of concupiscience. IF our nature was evil, then Jesus Christ did NOT take up our nature during the incarnation. The POTENTIAL exists for man to be sinless, in Christ (as Mary has shown). It is NOT our nature to sin - God created us GOOD. As a result of the Fall, we were wounded without the ability to reclaim that lost sanctifying grace on our own. That much we agree. But we disagree on anthropology.
Our intellect, as opposed to our nature, to choose to sin comes into play after salvation, for sin happens, even though we have a regenerated heart, and God is not the author of evil
Our intellect and will come into play in choosing evil, regardless of whether we are regenerated or not. Paul makes his case in Romans 7 - that even AFTER this regeneration, he continues to sin, he continues to battle the FLESH - which does NOT stop tempting us. We do not lose concupiscience AFTER Baptism. This is why sanctification is a necessary part of the salvation formula. Baptism is merely one step in the process of our divinization.
Does God knock on everyone's heart equally, since God loves everyone? If so, then whose intellect would choose hell over heaven? It doesn't make sense.
God does NOT knock on everyone's heart "equally", although He knocks on everyone's heart "sufficiently". I have already explained why someone would choose "hell" over "heaven". The afterlife requires faith. It is something not seen yet. Thus, someone CAN make the choice to turn from God, and do one's own will - without consideration of afterlife consequences (because that person does not believe in the afterlife). No one is choosing "hell". They either don't take it seriously or don't believe in its existence.
Doesn't God bless some more than others with intellect? Is this God's love for all?
Intellect is not required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Directing one's will to God's Will is required. The intellect guides the will, the desire to do the good. But one does not have to be "intelligent" to know and interpret that Law written on their hearts. People, even the incredibly simple, know about justice, mercy, compassion, love, and contrition, even if they cannot define them.
God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things.
I don't see the distinction you make. It would be better to say "God allows evil for HIS own purposes. God does not cause evil". Thus, MAN is the operating agent and cause of evil. Would this be agreeable to your point of view? Classic Calvinism would say that God inevitably ALSO causes evil and actively reprobates men to hell. It is at this point where we would part company.
Regards