Theopologetics 038: 'Freedom and Power to Will and to Do': The Freedom of Adam and Eve in WCF/LBCF

In this episode, Chris discusses whether the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions of Faith affirm that Adam and Eve exercised libertarian free will, as claimed recently by Dr. Tim Stratton in his debate with Dr. James White.

[ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

I'm way behind on my Watch Later list. Sorry I'm just now catching up to this. But this was awesome! I don't take a position in these debates. My position is that we don't have the kind of data we would need to solve this problem, but I think you've given the best response to Dr Flowers et al I've seen.

[jacobstevens]

I have not watched the debate which brought up this topic nor am I exhaustively familiar with James White, but I have a similar reluctance to use philosophical jargon. For my part, it comes from wanting to stay as close to biblical terminology as possible, so that I can stay as close to the thought process behind the bible as possible. Perhaps that is Doctor White's thought process, perhaps not. But, especially with following your episodes here, I am easing up on this slightly as I grow in understanding these extra-biblical terms.

[jilesherron]

Introduction of terms and use of slides

7:07 Soteriology definition

9:59 Theistic Determinism definition

12:45 Compatibilism definition

17:24 Theistic Compatibilism definition

19:10 Libertarianism (Incompatibilism) definition

27:04 Westminster Confession of Faith (Introduction and history)

29:28 London Baptist Confession (Introduction and history)

32:29 WCF and LBCF Today

Where is gets fun! 😆

35:11 2019 Discussion w/Flowers

36:19 Clip of Flowers on defining Adam & Eve’s free will

43:10 Clip of Flowers agreeing that the divines (authors) of the WCF probably didn’t believe that Adam & Eve had LFW.

45:17 Clip of Flowers stating his belief that the “words” used by the divines in the WCF are a sufficient affirmation and definition of LFW, even if this wasn’t intended by them.

46:41 2022 Debate ft. Dr. Tim Stratton vs Dr. James White

48:06 Clip of Stratton quoting chp 9 of LBCF on free will.

50:15 Chris’ statement on loving one another through these disagreements.

Topic of the episode:

Part 1 of 3
52:28 Is what WCF/LBCF says about pre-fall Adam and Eve “sufficient to define LFW”?

56:14 Answering the LFW definition questions:
- Does WCF/LBCF say the first human wills were undetermined?
- That their choices originated in themselves?
- That they had the categorical ability to do otherwise?

Part 2 of 3
1:00:49 From what exactly does it say Adam and Eve were free before the Fall?

Part 3 of 3
1:06:41 Surrounding context proves the Divines intended CFW in chapter 9.

1:08:33 W/[LB]CF chapter 5: {Paraphrase} God’s providence extended even over the first fall, not as bare permission, but joined with God’s bounding, while also in a way that sinfulness only proceeded from the creature.

1:09:30 W/[LB]CF chapter 6: {Paraphrase} God was pleased to “permit” their sin having purposed it for His own glory.

1:11:30 Summary and Conclusion

Questions and Answers

1:16:29 Q1: What are your thoughts on the definition of Exhaustive Divine Determinism?
1:18:33 EDD Definition from Stratton: The idea that antecedent conditions are causally sufficient for an effect. (Aka causal determinism)

1:28:58 Q2: There are two levels of determinism at play in a computer program. The program determines the behavior of the computer, but that in no way contradicts the idea that the behavior of the all the transistors in the computer are determined by the laws of physics.

[Ashwin]

Hi Chris,
Your argument is man has
1. A will with the natural liberty and power of acting upon choice.
2. Adam could choose to do Good.
3. The above statements still allow for God to determine Adam's choices such that Adam's choices cannot have originated from Adam himself.

Can you define choice as something that does not originate within a man? If a man has power to make choices and act on them, then their actions originate in themselves.
Saying that said will or choice is not forced, or determined by any nature of the person only emphasises this ability to make choices which are not exactly determined.

If Adam could choose to do good. He could have chosen to do contrary to the evil he did in the fall.

If human nature and external force did not constraint human choices, How did God determine Adam's choices?
If God constrained Adam's choice such that he could not choose good during the fall, how can the divines claim Adam could have chosen good?
You need to answer this question to make any kind of sense. All you have done is turn chapter 9, 1&2 into gobbledygook.

God bless.

[Ashwin]

chapter 9 of the Baptist confession
1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. ( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )
2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it. ( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )

Doesn't the word "not determined" and "not forced" imply that God did not determine Human actions and hence it was undetermined by external agencies?
Wouldn't the word "acting upon choice" indicate that the originator of the action is the one who is acting upon choice?

Why not say the confessions expressed their beliefs wrongly, reinterpret or "correctly interpret" the concerned biblical text and move forward?
Maybe suggest a better wording to suggest compatibilism.. perhaps something like
Man in his innocence could choose to sin amd God made sure he did.

[jilesherron]

Hey Chris - Thank you so much for the well prepared and presented video. I also very much appreciate your demeanor of love towards those of us who disagree. I see antagonistic and misrepresenting behavior on both sides and it saddens me greatly.

I do have a question that I hoped to get your thoughts on (and if you have addressed this in another video feel free to link that).

According to the LBCF:

LBCF 3.2 “Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.”

I have always understood that the majority Reformed perspective is that God’s foreknowledge is based upon (some even say subjected to) His decree and predestination of events. While 3.2 confirms that view, is also has the statement which seems to mean that God CAN have knowledge of events of which He did not predetermine the conditions.

Am I reading that wrong or perhaps have a misunderstanding?

[danbreeden]

John Wesley had said that his view a form of semi Augustinian armininianism was within a hairs breadth of Calvinism

[Ashwin]

Chris Date is describing something that is like Dominos fall, or a programmed event while denying that it is so. Chris claims the following:
1. Person A under circumstances B will definitely do C
2. God determined that person A will be the way he/she is through creation and God has brought about the circumstances he/she is in.. hence God determines everything that happens.

I don't see how this is not like programming.

[theidolbabblerthedailydose]

I’m not following. If the divines say that “the first humans weren’t externally forced or internally inclined toward evil” (as shown in the slides), then how are the first humans considered to still be under compatibilistic free will as the second humans were after the fall?

Wouldn’t not being “externally forced or internally inclined toward evil” = libertarian free will?

It seems as though the divines meant to differentiate the types of freedom that the first and second humans had, no?

[peterw]

Chris - In your opinion is Leighton being dishonest in his argumentation or is he really that obtuse?

[joshuasmith]

Is there a way I can get in contact with you?

[VeryBasicBible]

Can we just stop using "causal determinism" then? If we think God decreed all things so they come to pass immutably, and that is not "causal determinism", what shorthand could we start using s that no one in confused?

So far, all we get it "you believe X" "No you don't and here's why [explanation]". [thinks on the explanation]. "Ok, then you believe Y". "No we don't, here's why [explanation] [think on the explanation] "Ok, you believe Z" "No we don't, here's why [explanation] [thinks on the explanation] "Ok then..."
. . .
ad - in - fi - - - nitum

[peterw]

I can't believe Leighton's BS response video. Please understand that we can all see the dishonest manner with which Leighton is discussing this issue.