[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

It was against what they should naturally have wanted.

It makes no sense Gavin. If it is against what they naturally wanted then you must be saying that wanted it via other than natural (read: supernatural) means.

[ICTHUS]

Gah...I knew that if I didn't restrict this thread to Reformed posters, it would start a huge argument... *holds head in hands*

[InGodsWill]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Ok, so you're saying yes, right?

I'm not saying yes because I don't know what you mean by "completely free will". But they were free to choose to sin or not to sin but they were not under the curse of sin. They completely had the ability to sin and not to sin.

[InGodsWill]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

I'm just making it clear that they even made a choice that was against their nature. It was against what they should naturally have wanted.

They did NOT make a choice against their nature. Did you read any of my post?!?! did anyone read my post?!?!? Their moral nature is that they are able not to sin and are able to sin. Their choice is completely in the in accordance with their moral nature. Again let me point out that they were not under the curse of sin though, but had the ability to sin, thus giving them a freedom to choose.

[SilverNitrate]

I still don't get it.

I think I'm not explaining what I don't understand... so I'm going to try to put it like this:

If I bake a vanilla cake and add a "magical" ingredient that in 3 hours will turn the vanilla cake into a spice cake... did I bake a vanilla cake or did I bake a spice cake? The overall outcome is that it is a spice cake... meaning that its nature is a spice cake.

In the same way, God created humans... who later sinned against Him. It was part of God's master plan that Adam sin... if Adam did not have this sin nature, then he would not have been able to sin at all. Just like the vanilla cake would not turn into a spice cake without the "magical" ingredient.

Am I making any sense?

[InGodsWill]

Define for me what you mean by "sin nature" and maybe I can help you. Cause if you mean that a "sin nature" simply implies that one has the abilty to sin, then Adam and Eve have a sin nature, but if you mean more of what Romans 3:9-12 talks about, then they did not have that.

You are getting hung up on that term 'sin nature' though. Depending on your defination of a 'sin nature' Adam and Eve may have had that or not. But since this is a moral question we are dealing with, all we need to know is what they were moraly able or not able to do. And God gave them the abilty to sin, if they so choose.

And just like your cake anology, to only ingreedent that Adam and Eve would need in order to commit a sin is that God grant them that ability.

[ICTHUS]

This thread is not answering the original question...

Also, I intended the title to be a spinoff of the book title "Adam and Eve and Pinch Me"

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

The very first instance of biblical use of Free will, was in the Garden of Eden, and they had all the free will to reject God. He gave it to them, because he loves them, and wants them to choose Him.

Firstly: Everyone has free will. No one has libertarian free will. In short, everyone has free will to do what God already knows that they will do—God is omniscient.

Secondly: God gave free will to man knowing that they would not be capable of choosing Him. They had the free will to do it. However, no matter how many times the scenario is done over, Adam and Eve will never choose God. Otherwise God's perfect plan would be foiled.

Thirdly: God did not want them to choose Him. Yet, He was sad that they didn't. It's similar to God wanting that everyone were saved, yet He chose not to make everyone able to accept Christ. Otherwise, we have universalism.