I would like to re-address what I said in my post yesterday, because it is foggy to me and most likely anyone who would read it. There were many strong side-steps, but the main proposition – which is the equating of Adam with the new-born believer is a bit shaky.
Although Adam must have had a the same sense of ‘free will’ before sinning than a new-born believer, there are other variables to consider. One such variable is the fact that he was the first man God ever created! Although I would not label him a ‘prototype’ of sorts; he does have other unique qualities that new-born believers do not have. Because of these differing qualities, I would like to affirm that Adam was, in a sense, in the same perspective of a new-born believer only from a non-literal standpoint. He had access and foresight of God’s riches, yet chose something else which ultimately gave him less. New-born Christians are similar in that way when they choose to sin.
I will not however, back-up on the main underlying belief of the comparison. That is to say that we are deprived, even though we have a free will. Calvinism states that we have no free will because we are deprived, Arminianism states that we have free will and are un-deprived. My view sets a common ground for the two. There are numerous references of ‘freedom from sin’, ‘freedom from bondage’, ‘freedom from the law’ in the new testament. These passages imply a fundamental difference between the pre-saved and the saved and that difference certainly has something to do with the word ‘free’!
Maybe the reason why the bible has chosen to not emphasize the idea of ‘free will’ (although still acknowledging it; Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15) is because of it’s irrelevancy from a man-God relationship. Man will choose to go his own way, regardless of whether he has free will or not. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Romans 3:10-13
If all the choices you made brought you to a certain point, each of those choices although appearing to be made freely are actually not. taken independently each choice could be said to have been made freely, but nothing is purely independant, so every choice you make hinges on other choices which themselves hinge on other choices which amass to create the domino chain which is the duality of free choice/destiny.
So in freely choosing you are choosing what you Freely choose and at the same time what you Must choose.
Yes, but in those series of choices, the range is so expansive, that it will always be a free choice.
If I run into a 7-11 with a Suburban, I have the ability to run from the police in a tutu. That is, if in a previous “domino” I chose to bring one/put one on, however, I could at least run from the police.
Or I could allow them to apprehend me, only to run away.
Consequences do not hinder freewill. Thus the domino chain can be altered at any given time. Thus, while everything is not purely independent, it remains merely (yea, I know you love that word chris) independent.
Josh, I am not ‘noman’, ‘noman’ is my brother. :p
I don’t know why he chose that name.
I am aware of the duality of free will/destiny, but I think my perspective of ‘destiny’ is a bit different than society’s. To me, destiny is the consequence of all the little ‘dominos’ you’ve laid down in your life. It was pre-conceived only because God knew us before we were. The medieval idea of ‘destiny’ is actually a biblical concept.
if a million ‘merely’ independent events combine to make something occur, can those events be called independent anymore?
if the occurence won’t occur without the merely independent events effecting it, the occurence is dependent on the ‘independent’ events which are in light of the occurence no longer independent.