WCF Chapter 9 Question - Adam's free will vs. ours in glory

moral necessity · #1 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 10:29 PM

From reading Chapter 9 of the WCF today, I had a question with regard to Section 1 and Section 5. From section 1, Adam appears to have been originally given a liberty of will to choose good or evil. From section 5, it appears that our will is not like that in glory. In glory, our will no longer has the ability to choose evil, only good. So, does God violate our natures? Does he alter something within our wills so that it is no longer like the will that Adam was given? For, Adam could choose good or evil; but we will only be able to choose good.

Blessings!

fredtgreco · #2 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 10:34 PM

It is rather that our nature will be perfected. Had Adam passed the probationary period, he too would have entered into a state of non posse peccare.

moral necessity · #3 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 10:49 PM

Thanks, Fred! Where can I find some info about the "probationary period"? It sounds like Adam's nature was then created good, but not perfect. Is that the gist of it?

moral necessity · #4 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008, 09:37 PM

Any thoughts? Also, what is non posse peccare?

Blessings!

Gomarus · #5 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 12:40 PM

Pre-Fall Man: able to sin, able to not sin

Post-Fall Man: able to sin, unable to not sin

Reborn Man: able to sin, able to not sin

Glorified Man: able to not sin, unable to sin

The last point, unable to sin = non posse peccare

Ref. Augustine and also Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, by the Scottish Puritan Thomas Boston (1676–1732)

KMK · #6 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Pre-Fall Man: able to sin, able to not sin

Post-Fall Man: able to sin, unable to not sin

Reborn Man: able to sin, able to not sin

Glorified Man: able to not sin, unable to sin

The last point, unable to sin = non posse peccare

Ref. Augustine and also Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, by the Scottish Puritan, Thomas Boston (1676–1732)

I agree in principle, but perhaps this is so simple that it is slightly misleading. Pre-fall Adam was able to sin and able to not sin, but being righteous and unstained by sin he was actually prone to the latter. Reborn man, still living with an unregenerated flesh, is able to sin and able to not sin, but is prone to the former. Prefall Adam and the Reborn man are not exactly in the same situation.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Gomarus · #7 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

. . . Prefall Adam and the Reborn man are not exactly in the same situation.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

moral necessity · #8 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 10:14 PM

Upon reading Edwards' Freedom of the Will, and Luther's Bondage of the Will, as well as Dabney's section on it in his Systematic Theology, I saw that they seemed to view the will as being in bondage to the nature of the person. As the nature goes, so goes the will. All of the other faculties follow the nature as well. The mind, will, and affections are all governed by the nature. So, technically speaking, according to them, the will is not free, but is bound by and to the nature. So, we speak of people as not having a free will, but as being free agents with a bound will to the nature that they possess.

So, when the WCF says in Ch.9, Sec.1, that Adam had a liberty of will to good or evil, I conclude that his nature had such a liberty to be disposed to either. Then, when the WCF says in Ch.9, Sec.5, that, in glory, our will can only choose good, I conclude that our nature must only have a liberty to good for that to occur.

Fred's answer seems to mesh with this idea, for he says that "our natures will be perfected." Our wills therefore will follow. But, if that's the case, my question is, "Was Adam's nature therefore not perfect?" It must have been "second-class", right? It was still good. And, if so, then why is it deemed as a "fall", if he was only acting according to his created nature? What did he fall from? It couldn't have been from a state of perfection, could it? I guess he fell from his ability to do good, perhaps. That makes sense. Thoughts?

So, what about this "probationary period"? Where does this idea come from? Is it speculation or scripture? Or, some speculation from scripture?

Blessings!

KMK · #9 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 05:25 PM

As for Adam's fall, I don't know if it is correct to say that it was a fall from 'perfection' or not. Perhaps we could say that it was a fall from the 'potentiality' of perfection?

Either way, I sort of disagree. Adam did not fall according to his nature. Having righteousness and knowledge his nature was to not sin. In a way, Adam acted against his nature in order to sin.

Again, correct me if I am wrong...

Gomarus · #10 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 06:36 PM

I believe the thinking is that . . . had Adam obeyed, he would have been confirmed in his created state, which God called "good." Maybe we say, he would have been confirmed in his perfection. But he disobeyed, not according to his nature but in spite of his created nature. just my $0.02

moral necessity · #11 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Adam did not fall according to his nature. Having righteousness and knowledge his nature was to not sin. In a way, Adam acted against his nature in order to sin.

Right...for if he did, it would seem odd. I think about these things often, and try to put the puzzle pieces together. Having viewed it in a similar way, it seems to place the will above the nature, does it not?...meaning, if Adam's nature was to not sin, then his will had an ability to trump that and go in the opposite direction. Doesn't it seem odd, however, to view the composition of the person like that?...to where the whole does not govern the parts, but to where one of the parts can trump the whole? How are we to correctly view the person, in view of the relationship of the nature of the man to the faculties that are within him? Do the faculties submit to the nature? Or do they act independently of the nature?

armourbearer · #12 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 08:47 PM

Adam's nature was earthy. He was fobidden from following his earthy nature in the case of the forbidden fruit. He followed that nature and disobeyed God's directive when he chose to eat it. I fail to see how he acted contrary to his nature. He acted in accord with his nature as left to himself without divine assistance. Yes, he acted contrary to his righteousness; but the very purpose of the probation was to test that righteousness; so it was by nature a mutable righteousness, and one from which it was possible for him to fall by his own free choice.

KMK · #13 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Adam's nature was earthy. He was fobidden from following his earthy nature in the case of the forbidden fruit. He followed that nature and disobeyed God's directive when he chose to eat it. I fail to see how he acted contrary to his nature. He acted in accord with his nature as left to himself without divine assistance. Yes, he acted contrary to his righteousness; but the very purpose of the probation was to test that righteousness; so it was by nature a mutable righteousness, and one from which it was possible for him to fall by his own free choice.

He acted contrary to his 'righteousness'. Check.

moral necessity · #14 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Adam's nature was earthy. He was fobidden from following his earthy nature in the case of the forbidden fruit. He followed that nature and disobeyed God's directive when he chose to eat it. I fail to see how he acted contrary to his nature. He acted in accord with his nature as left to himself without divine assistance. Yes, he acted contrary to his righteousness; but the very purpose of the probation was to test that righteousness; so it was by nature a mutable righteousness, and one from which it was possible for him to fall by his own free choice.

I'm glad you joined in with your thoughts. It seems appropriate to my thinking that the nature governs the faculties. Without divine assistance, he was bound to fall. I wonder what "acting contrary to his righteousness" means. What righteousness did he have? As God is the fountain of good, Adam surely cannot be.

armourbearer · #15 (**permalink**) 03-07-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moral necessity

What righteousness did he have?

Perhaps Thomas Boston can illuminate (from Fourfold State):

Quote:

I. Of Man’s Original Righteousness.

As to the righteousness of this state, consider, that as uncreated righteousness, the righteousness of God is the supreme rule; so all created righteousness, whether of men or angels, has respect to a law as its rule, and is a conformity thereto. A creature can no more be morally independent of God in its actions and powers, than it can be naturally independent of him. A creature, as a creature, must acknowledge the Creator’s will as its supreme law; for as it cannot exist without him, so it must not be but for him, and according to his will; yet no law obliges, until it is revealed. And hence it follows, that there was a law, which man, as a rational creature, was subjected to in his creation; and that this law was revealed to him.

“God made man upright,” says the text. This supposes a law to which he was conformed in his creation; as when any thing is made regular, or according to rule, of necessity the rule itself is presupposed. Whence we may gather, that this law was no other than the eternal, indispensable law of righteousness, observed in all points by the second Adam, opposed by the carnal mind, and some notions of which remain yet among the Pagans, who, “having not the law, are a law unto themselves,” Rom. 2:14. In a word, this law is the very same which was afterwards summed up in the ten commandments, and promulgated, on mount Sinai, to the Israelites, called by us the moral law, and man’s righteousness consisted in conformity to this law or rule. More particularly, there is a twofold conformity required of a man: a conformity of the powers of his soul to the law, which you may call habitual righteousness; and a conformity of all his actions to it, which is actual righteousness. Now, God made man habitually righteous; man was to make himself actually righteous: the former was the stock which God put into his hand; the latter was the improvement he should have made of it. The sum of what I have said is, that the righteousness wherein man was created, was the conformity of all the faculties and powers of his soul to the moral law. This is what we call Original Righteousness, which man was originally endued with.

On the mutability of this righteousness:

Quote:

It was mutable; it was a righteousness that might be lost, as is manifested by the doleful event. His will was not absolutely indifferent to good and evil; God set it towards good only, yet he did not so fix and confirm its inclinations, that it could not alter. No, it was moveable to evil, and that only by man himself, God having given him a sufficient power to stand in this integrity, if he had pleased. Let no man quarrel with God’s works in this; for if Adam had been unchangeably righteous, he must have been so either by nature or by free gift: by nature he could not be so, for that is proper to God, and incommunicable to any creature; if by free gift, then no wrong was done to him in withholding what he could not crave. Confirmation in a righteous state is a reward of grace, given upon continuing righteous through the state of trial, and would have been given to Adam if he had stood out the time appointed for probation by the Creator; and accordingly is given to the saints upon account of the merits of Christ, who “was obedient even unto death.” And herein believers have the advantage of Adam, that they can never totally nor finally fall away from grace.

moral necessity · #16 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

[for if Adam had been unchangeably righteous, he must have been so either by nature or by free gift: by nature he could not be so, for that is proper to God, and incommunicable to any creature; if by free gift, then no wrong was done to him in withholding what he could not crave.

Thanks for the Thomas Bolton reference. It affirms my thoughts. Unchangeable righteousness is incommunicable. Hence the withdrawal of the Spirit to promote the fall. God is righteous, however, for he owed nothing to no creature. He intended to display his glory and his grace, as well as his justice and righteous wrath. And, in glory, he intends to not withdraw his Spirit at all, and so we will remain in unchangeable righteousness forever, for we are united to Christ forever. What a blessing!

Can you explain about the probation when you get a chance. I see no scripture illustrating this concept at this time. I assume it's speculation from reason according to scripture.

Blessings!

armourbearer · #17 (**permalink**) 03-09-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moral necessity

Can you explain about the probation when you get a chance. I see no scripture illustrating this concept at this time. I assume it's speculation from reason according to scripture.

The "probation," along with much of the covenant terminology associated with the Adamic administration, is derived from Scripture's own two Adam schema, Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 15, and Heb. 2. Rom. 5 teaches Adam's sin has resulted in death, which must be understood as eternal death because Christ's obedience has resulted in eternal life; therefore the life set before Adam must have been eternal life. From 1 Cor. 15 we learn that he was natural and earthy as preliminary to the spiritual and heavenly; so the eschatological goal of Adam's existence was spiritual and heavenly life. Then Heb. 2 teaches that man's created earthly inferiority to angels was only for a time, and was to lead to a state of honour and glory. This means there is a sense in which Adam was created in a state of humiliation, and required exaltation to reach the end of his being.

Amazing Grace · #18 (**permalink**) 03-09-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by moral necessity

Can you explain about the probation when you get a chance. I see no scripture illustrating this concept at this time. I assume it's speculation from reason according to scripture.

The "probation," along with much of the covenant terminology associated with the Adamic administration, is derived from Scripture's own two Adam schema, Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 15, and Heb. 2. Rom. 5 teaches Adam's sin has resulted in death, which must be understood as eternal death because Christ's obedience has resulted in eternal life; therefore the life set before Adam must have been eternal life. From 1 Cor. 15 we learn that he was natural and earthy as preliminary to the spiritual and heavenly; so the eschatological goal of Adam's existence was spiritual and heavenly life. Then Heb. 2 teaches that man's created earthly inferiority to angels was only for a time, and was to lead to a state of honour and glory. This means there is a sense in which Adam was created in a state of humiliation, and required exaltation to reach the end of his being.

Doesnt this lead to a thought that Adam could have been in no need of Christ then? This is why I deny a probation of eternal life on his obedience.

armourbearer · #19 (**permalink**) 03-09-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Doesnt this lead to a thought that Adam could have been in no need of Christ then?

This cannot be, because the structure of the schema is dependent on the fact that Adam is a figure of Christ to come.