There are many words and concepts in theology that suffer from misunderstanding, 
mis-characterization, and misinformation. “Predestination,” “Calvinism,” “Total Depravity,” “Inerrancy,” and “Complementarianism”, just to name a few that I personally have to deal with. Proponents are more often than not on the defensive, having to explain again and again why it is they don’t mean what people think they mean.
The concept of “free will” suffers no less with regard to this misunderstanding. Does a person have free will? Well, what do you mean by “free will”? This must always be asked.
Do you mean:
- That a person is not forced from the outside to make a choice?
- That a person is responsible for his or her choices?
- That a person is the active agent in a choice made?
- That a person is free to do whatever they desire?
- That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are)?
Calvinists, such as myself, do believe in free will and we don’t believe in free will. It just depends on what you mean.
When it comes to the first three options, most Calvinist would agree that a person is not forced to make a choice, is responsible for their choices, and is the active agent behind those choices. They would reject the forth believing that a person is not free to do whatever they desire (for example, no matter how much one desires, he or she cannot read the thoughts of another person, fly without wings, or transport from one location to another just by thinking about the desired location).
It is important to note at this point, there is no conflict. No matter what theological persuasion you adhere to, most of historic Christianity has agreed that the first three are true, while the fourth is false.
It is with the fifth option there is disagreement.
Does a person have the ability to choose against their nature?
This question gets to the heart of the issue. Here we introduce a new and more defined term (hang with me here): “Libertarian Free-will” or “Libertarian Freedom.” Libertarian freedom can be defined briefly thus:
Libertarian Freedom: “The power of contrary choice.”
If you ask whether a person can choose against their nature (i.e. libertarian freedom) the answer, I believe, must be “no.” A person’s nature makes up who they are. Who they are determines their choice. If there choice is determined, then the freedom is self-limited. Therefore, there is no “power” of contrary choice for we cannot identify what or who this “power” might be. I know, I know . . . slow down. Let me explain.
First, it is important to get this out of the way. To associate this denial of libertarian freedom exclusively with Calvinism would be misleading. St. Augustine was the first to deal with this issue in a comprehensive manner. Until the forth century, it was simply assumed that people were free and responsible, but they had yet to flesh out what this meant. Augustine further elaborated on the Christian understanding of freedom. He argued that people choose according to who they are. If they are good, they make good choices. If they are bad, they make bad choices. These choices are free, they just lack liberty. In other words, a person does not become a sinner because they sin, they sin because they are a sinner. It is an issue of nature first. If people are identified with the fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty or freedom of contrary choice.
What you have to ask is this: If “free will” means that we can choose against our nature (i.e. the power of contrary choice), if “free will” means that we can choose against who we are, what does this mean? What does this look like? How does a free person make a choice that is contrary to who they are? Who is actually making the choice? What is “free will” in this paradigm?
If one can choose according to who they are not, then they are not making the choice and this is not really freedom at all, no? Therefore, there is, at the very least, a self-determinism at work here. This is a limit on free will and, therefore, a necessary denial of true libertarian freedom.
Think about all that goes into making “who you are.” We are born in the fallen line of Adam. Spiritually speaking we have an inbred inclination toward sin. All of our being is infected with sin. This is called “total depravity.” Every aspect of our being is infected with sin, even if we don’t act it out to a maximal degree.
But even if this were not the case,—even if total depravity were a false doctrine—libertarian freedom would still be untenable. Not only are you who you are because of your identification with a fallen human race, but notice all these factors that you did not choose that go into the set up for any given “free will” decision made:
- You did not choose when you were to be born.
- You did not choose where you were to be born.
- You did not choose your parents.
- You did not choose your influences early in your life.
- You did not choose whether you were to be male or female.
- You did not choose your genetics.
- You did not choose your temperament.
- You did not choose your looks.
- You did not choose your body type.
- You did not choose your physical abilities.
All of these factors play an influencing role in who you are at the time of any given decision. Yes, your choice is free, but it has you behind them. Therefore, you are free to choose according to you from whom you are not able to free yourself!
Now, I must reveal something here once again that might surprise many of you. This view is held by both Calvinists and Arminians alike. Neither position believes that a person can choose against their nature. Arminians, however, differ from Calvinists in that they believe in the doctrine of prevenient grace, which essentially neutralizes the will so that the inclination toward sin—the antagonism toward Gog—is relieved so that the person can make a true “free will” decision.
However, we still have some massive difficulties. Here are a couple:
A neutralized will amounts to your absence from the choice itself.
Changing the nature of a person so that their predispositions are neutral does not really help. We are back to the question What does a neutralized will look like? Does it erase all of the you behind the choice? If you are neutralized and liberated from you, then who is making the choice? How can you be held responsible for a choice that you did not really make, whether good or bad?
A neutralized will amounts to perpetual indecision. Think about this, if a person had true libertarian freedom, where there were no coercive forces, personal or divine, that influenced the decision, would a choice ever be made? If you have no reason to choose A or B, then neither would ever be chosen. Ronald Nash illustrates this by presenting a dog who has true libertarian freedom trying to decide between two bowls of dog food. He says that the dog would end up dying of starvation. Why? Because he would never have any reason to choose one over the other. It is like a balanced scale, it will never tilt to the right or the left unless the weights (influence) on one side is greater than the other. Then, no matter how little weight (influence) is added to a balanced scale, it will always choose accordingly.
A neutralized will amounts to arbitrary decisions, which one cannot be held responsible for.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that libertarian choice could be made. Let’s say that the dog did choose one food bowl over the other. In a truly libertarian sense, this decision cannot have influences of any kind. Any decision without influences is arbitrary. It would be like flipping a coin. I chose A rather than B, not because of who I am, but for no reason at all. It just turned out that way. But this option is clearly outside a biblical worldview of responsibility and judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the outcome for the fight for true libertarian free-will comes at the expense of true responsibility!
In conclusion: while I believe in free will, I don’t believe in libertarian free will. We make the choices we make because of who we are. We are responsible for these choices. God will judge each person accordingly with a righteous judgment.
Is there tension? Absolutely. We hold in tension our belief in God’s sovereignty, determining who we are, when we live, where we will live, who our parents will be, our DNA, etc. and human responsibility. While this might seem uncomfortable, I believe that it is not only the best biblical option, but the only philosophical option outside outside of fatalism, and we don’t want to go there.
Acts 17:26-28
“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’”
Thoughts? Do you believe in free will?
414 replies to "A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will”"
Jim, you said:
‘I think because of Free Will. Why bother praying or witnessing if it is all pre-determined”
Consider the opposite brother. Turn the question back around on yourself. Why bother praying to God about men’s salvation if men have final self-determination?
John Piper words it this way:
If you insist that this man must have the power of ultimate self-determination, what is the point of praying for him? What do you want God to do for Him? You can’t ask that God overcome the man’s rebellion, for rebellion is precisely what the man is now choosing, so that would mean God overcame his choice and took away his power of self-determination. But how can God save this man unless he act so as to change the man’s heart from hard hostility to tender trust?
Will you pray that God enlighten his mind so that he truly see the beauty of Christ and believe? If you pray this, you are in effect asking God no longer to leave the determination of the man’s will in his own power. You are asking God to do something within the man’s mind (or heart) so that he will surely see and believe. That is, you are conceding that the ultimate determination of the man’s decision to trust Christ is God’s, not merely his.
What I am saying is that it is not the doctrine of God’s sovereignty which thwarts prayer for the conversion of sinners. On the contrary, it is the unbiblical notion of self-determination which would consistently put an end to all prayers for the lost. Prayer is a request that God do something. But the only thing God can do to save a lost sinner is to overcome his resistance to God. If you insist that he retain his self-determination, then you are insisting that he remain without Christ. For “no one can come to Christ unless it is given him from the Father” (John 6:65,44).
Only the person who rejects human self-determination can consistently pray for God to save the lost.
Hey CMP,
I just want to echo the thanks of others for being willing to address these kinds of topics (free will and gender roles within a week or two?!) in an irenic manner. It’s great to be able discuss these things without it devolving into a virtual slugfest. This is the way Christian blogging should be.
“Influences need to be considered as well. We need to understand how powerful they are. Take Eve in the garden. Why did she sin? The text seems to imply that it was the temptation and arguments of the snake that led her in that direction. Adam then blamed Eve. God seems to acknowledge all these factors, even though he held both Eve and Adam responsible for their actions.”
Could you extrapolate the reverse of this then? That the positive influences of Christians (whether through scripture, reasoned arguments for Christianity, exemplary living, etc.) could convince some one to accept God? I really don’t think you have answered AP’s objection here. Since ultimately what Arminian’s argue is that Prievenient Grace puts us back in the position of Adam in terms of being able to accept or reject the grace offered to us you need to show that Adam did not have the power of contrary choice in the garden and in fact was predestined to eat the apple. Of course proving this is going to raise all sorts of other theological and philosophical questions I’m not sure you want to get into.
Michael T, you said:
“I almost laughed when I read your post because you state emphatically that Calvinism is not fatalism and then go on to argue that God has determined the “ends as well as the means” which is a textbook definition of fatalism.”
Actually brother, I carefully pointed out that my understanding of fatalism is that the ends happens regardless of what happens between now and then (the means). 🙂 I was careful to say that God uses means to reach his ends, as opposed to simply bringing about the ends with no means. Therefore, that is not fatalism.
CMP,
Regarding your last comment, I would still really like to know how any definition of “loving” and “just” can fit the Calvinist understanding? Are these words poor choices of translation perhaps? Because no understanding of those words that I know of can call it either loving or just to hold people responsible for doing something that they really had no choice but to do but were determined by God Himself because of the way He made that person. Specifically when holding them responsible for what they had no choice but to do means they will be sent to hell eternally. How do you explain that–to me it seems to be a total and complete contradiction of the very meaning of those words. It is why I have such a very hard time with Calvinism as a whole. It seems to teach a picture of God that is quite contrary to those very attributes.
CMP
You are redefining fatalism since fatalism is viewed from the perspective of the individual. If there is a irresitible force outside of myself which predestines me to act a certain way then this is fatalism clear and simple. I am a robot.
Thanks Curt.
How does what I say call in to question LFW???
By admitting that man under bondage to sin can only sin shatters the LFW theory. Unless you want to say that man under bondage to sin does not get judged on those sins committed while in bondage to sin. Otherwise LFW is dead, thanks to Boss we can all breathe a little easier tonight
Fatalism is just we can’t to do anything other than what we actually do. It doesn’t have much to do with causal determinism unless you add foreknowledge to it.
Theological Fatalism would just appeal that this is so because God knew it would be happen beforehand.
Ben, you said:
—
And you are unwilling to do it because you cannot possibly be willing to do it. So how does your qualification actually amount to anything different from what was already said?
—
Ben, assuming you’re an Arminian who affirms Total Depravity, I’m not sure what you are opposed to here. Saying that a person cannot possibly be willing to repent and believe is simply the definition of Total Depravity. So clear this up for me: Are you opposed to, or for, Total Depravity?
If I were to take a guess, what you’re opposed to is not Total Depravity in and of itself, but Total Depravity *without* Prevenient Grace.
So are you saying that God is obligated to give prevenient grace, because without it, leaving men in their Totally Depraved state would be unjust of Him?
So…obligatory grace? *scratches head…*
Thanks, again, Michael for reminding me of Calvanism’s…elegance, and the freedom I enjoy from not having to will notions like “prevenient grace” into existance.
Joseff,
This is the fundamental question. Can God’s Will be thwarted? Can you choose to do something that God does not will? If the answer to these is no then it is fatalism. You are compelled actively or passively to follow a force outside of yourself and ultimately have no choice in the matter.
Good point Richard. It seems people jump from on un-biblical idea, LFW, straight into another un-biblical idea, prevenient grace.
Of course if this magical fairy dust of LFW were true there would be no need for prevenient grace, but that’s neither here nor there.
Michael T,
Ah, perhaps you are referring to determinism, and not fatalism. I think those are two different things. Correct me if I’m wrong.
We can talk about determinism.
You see, non-Calvinists are quick to charge Calvinism’s view of God’s sovereignty as determinism, as if determinism was unique to Calvinism. The truth is, the Arminian or non-Calvinist does not escape determinism. If God knows the future perfectly, and if God foreknows X, then X, in time, cannot run the chance of being anything other than true. Otherwise God knew wrongly. If God foresees that Bob will accept Christ, and Joe will deny Christ, then in Bob’s life, when it finally comes to pass in time, is fixed in such a way that Bob cannot do anything other than accept Christ. Same for Joe. Their lives cannot possibly turn out different.
That is determinism. But if it’s not God that is determining things, who or what is? Arminianism does not escape determinism, it only avoid *theistic* determinism.
This means the Arminian’s accusation against the Calvinist is simply that the Calvinist says God determines what happens in His own universe. But this is hardly an accusation at all!
This means that only Open Theism consistently and truly allows for the concept of Lib.Free Will.
Michael, you asked:
“Can God’s Will be thwarted?”
Doesn’t the Bible answer that question in more ways than one?
Job 42:2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
An interesting side note. In Law School I oddly enough studied Calvinism (Calvin btw was by training a lawyer) in relation to the law. The thinking of the Reformed Movement was actually the last major theological movement which has had a significant impact on Western legal thought. It’s impact moved us from the Natural Law thinking of the Scholastics which had dominated Law for hundreds of years to the positivist view that is prevalent today. This happened because while theologians and philosophers of the past had focused on God’s essential essence as being Reason, Calvinists focused on God’s essential essence as being Will and Power. Thus in the legal arena, influenced by Calvinist thinking and increasing secularism, we moved from a system where the law was determined by reason according to Natural Law to a system that focuses simply on whether or not the law was put in place by a body having the authority to do so and the power to enforce it.
Joseff,
But if God foreknows, knows ahead of time, that something will happen simply because he knows the future–knows the end from the beginning–then he will know what X is going to do–that X is going to CHOOSE that particular thing. That is different than saying X will do a particular thing because God has made the decision that is what he will do and he can not change it because you can’t go against God’s will.
Cherylu, thank you for that.
So are you saying that it’s ok for events in God’s creation to be determined by the creation itself. But it’s not ok for God to determine the events in his own creation?
Why is it wrong for God to be the determiner of things, but it’s right for creatures to be the determiner of things? I don’t understand.
Also, Isa 46:10, when it says that God declares the end from the beginning. That is not saying that God merely foresees the end and then states what it will be. That’s not what declares means. It means that God has decided the end, from the beginning. Not merely that he foresees the end, at the beginning 🙂 Otherwise, why would He randomly then say “my counsel will stand, I will do all my pleasure”.
In other words, it would make no sense for God to say “I foresee the end…therefore my counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure, I have spoken it and will bring it to pass, I have purposed it and will do it” (the next verse, Isah 46:11)
See what I’m saying?
Joseff,
That claim has been made against Arminian’s by many Open Theists and I just don’t buy it. To me it would only be an accurate claim if we somehow understood God as existing in time. Since God exists outside of time and sees time in the same way we see three dimensions I just don’t see his knowing what is going to happen as predestination or determinism. It is a hard concept to even begin to grasp, but think of it this way. When you walk outside you see all the scenery at one in three dimensions. Think of seeing time in the same way, all at once. Seeing that X is going to do Y at Z time no more predestines the event (unless you assume the entire universe is run by Newtonian cause and effect – which i largely disproved by Quantum Mechanics) then me walking outside and seeing a plane at a point in the sky predestined it to be there.
Also to definitions. Fatalism is the most extreme form of determinism where EVERYTHING is predetermined to happen. Even Arminian’s believe in some limited forms of determinism (for instance the death and resurrection of Christ). Maybe you are a different type of Calvinist, but most of the ones I know will admit that God has predetermined and ordained all that comes to pass, not just some things. This is fatalism.
It seems to me like it would be more honest for Calvinists to stop trying to argue that there is free will when on the other hand they say that we are not free to choose anything different then what the nature God has given us, the circumstances around us, etc, allows. That is not very “free” at all. And then a bunch of quotes are given that say that God determines EVERYTHING with no mention of any verses that seem to give a balance to that.
All I can honestly see in this is that we are in the Calvinist view of things, God’s puppets with no real choice in the matter but are still punished because He chose to make us the way He did. I don’t see any other honest way around that conclusion myself.
As to Isaiah 46 it is a great convincing verse for Calvinism until one looks at the context and language. God in this passage is drawing a stark contrast between Himself and the dead idols which the Israelites had come to worship. In this particular verse He is pointing out that He has acted in history, will act in history, and will carry out His plans. There is nothing in this verse that an Arminian would find damaging to their position. An open theist wouldn’t even have much trouble explaining this passage. The .NET Bible from Bible.org which is a very very good translation edited in part by Daniel Wallace, a regular contributor to this site, puts the verse this way.
46:9
Remember what I accomplished in antiquity!
Truly I am God, I have no peer;
I am God, and there is none like me,
46:10
who announces the end from the beginning
and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred,
who says, ‘My plan will be realized,
I will accomplish what I desire,’
Also you butcher the context of 46:11 which states this
From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do.
No Arminian believes that God doesn’t act in history and doesn’t predestine and ordain certain events. We simply don’t believe all is predestined and determined, especially on issues of salvation. God here is simply prophetically saying that he is going to raise up someone to fulfill his purpose.
By the way, how do the OT Scriptures in Ezekiel 18 that speak of a man turning from wickedness to righteousness and a man turning from righteousness to wickedness fit with the idea that he can only do according to his nature? It seems to me that there are some choices going on here that may be against his nature, don’t you think?
Cherylu,
Feel free to quote verses that give a balance to God determining EVERYTHING.
BTW, Cherylu can a leapard change his spots? Can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit?
I have to ask because google has no idea, what is LFW?
We should build an acronym dictionary on this site and your not allowed to use them unless they exist first 🙂
ACNA took me 10 minutes of googling to figure out what it meant… (Anglican Chrurch North America) arg…
-Paul-
LFW = Libertarian Free Will
Sam,
Any verse that speaks of man having a choice. If God has determined everything and there is no balance to that at all, there is no honest choice–only a taking up of what God has already determined we must do. That is not choice for us–the only real choice there is the choice that God made for us.
Welcome fellow puppets!
Deut 30:19
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
To all you Calvinists is this a genuine invitation?? Or had God already predetermined (which is more then simply having foreknowledge) that the Israelites would not choose life.
The only solution I have seen to these verses and others like “God wills that none shall perish and all shall come to eternal life” is to turn God into a being with multiple personality disorder having “two wills” one willing for salvation and one willing for destruction. It’s a interesting solution, although isn’t it a little disturbing how often the destruction will wins out over the salvation will???
Equating choice with LFW is careless. LFW is an action theory on how one makes choices. Why do you conflate choice with LFW.
Again you brought up that only verses mentioning God determining EVERYTHING were being presented and that is why I said feel free to quote verses that you feel balance the scale in the other direction.
cherylu,
Perhaps I’m missing something, but why isn’t our God–whose thoughts and ways are not ours (Isaiah 55:8)–big enough to determine plans that take into consideration our free choices?
“Equating choice with LFW is careless.”
Only in a materialistic Newtonian Universe
Chery, you have some very fatal and frightening flaws in your understanding of Calvinism.
You said:
===
All I can honestly see in this is that we are in the Calvinist view of things, God’s puppets with no real choice in the matter but are still punished because He chose to make us the way He did. I don’t see any other honest way around that conclusion myself.
…..
It seems to me like it would be more honest for Calvinists to stop trying to argue that there is free will when on the other hand they say that we are not free to choose anything different then what the nature God has given us
===
You’re mistaken. Calvinists do not argue that God “made us” this way, with our fallen natures. Calvinism begins in Gen 1 with God making us upright, not in Gen 3 with man being fallen.
Your argument implies that God gave humans a fallen nature and them blames it for it. This is not Calvinism. Calvinism says that God gave humans an upright nature, and man fell by his own fault. So you see, you are arguing against a strawman, a misunderstanding.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but why isn’t our God–whose thoughts and ways are not ours (Isaiah 55:8)–big enough to determine plans that take into consideration our free choices?
This is exactly what Arminianism posits though. Especially the Molinisitic interpretation of it. God’s plans include human free choice. He knows all of history at once and can intervene in such a way as to ensure his plans come to pass. That isn’t at issue. Causality is the issue. Does God CAUSE some people to go to heaven and some to go to hell? Is he the only factor in making this decision or does human free will play a role? Calvinism is monergistic which is simply a big word which means that God’s choice is the one and only deciding factor in who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Once someone has been chosen to go to heaven they will be irresistibly drawn in such a way that they cannot refuse God’s grace. Arminianism is synergistic which means we believe (at least most of us do) that God offers resistible grace to all people and that people can refuse or accept his offer.
Richard,
Sure He is big enough to determine plans that take into consideration our free choices. That is not my point. The argument seems to be, unless I am missing something, that we can only choose what he has already determined for us since he is totally responsible for everything that happens. And I, and others here are saying that choosing something that has been determined for us by God and we can do nothing about is not free choice in any way, shape, or form.
“Your argument implies that God gave humans a fallen nature and them blames it for it. This is not Calvinism. Calvinism says that God gave humans an upright nature, and man fell by his own fault. So you see, you are arguing against a strawman, a misunderstanding.”
Did God ordain the fall? John Piper, John Edwards, and most other popular 5 pointers think so.
Sam,
I am not eqauating choice with any particular idea other then the fact that it is not choice if it is already completely predetermined what the so called “choice” will be.
What is good about foreknowledge? I mean really, if all I know is because I’m outside of time and I see it happening what use is it to me in actuality. I can’t change it because it’s already happened.
As for LFW equaling choice, let’s try again-
LFW is a specific action theory on how one makes choices. To say that that is the same as LFW is choice is careless.
Now I should not be surprised, after all, if one truly believes in this magical fairy dust called LFW then being careless is the least of the problem:)
Chery, you said:
—–
And I, and others here are saying that choosing something that has been determined for us by God and we can do nothing about is not free choice in any way, shape, or form.
—-
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that we do choose things that are determined for us by God. What then? Could you worship a God that works that way? Could you accept that? You must, for this is exactly what we find in several stories in the Bible my friend!
Acts 4:27-28:
Act 4:27-28
(27) for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
(28) to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
Notice that the evil, wicked actions that Pilate, Herod, and others did to Christ was them simply doing “whatever God’s hand and plan predestined to take place”. That’s a prime example of men choosing to do simply what God determined for them.
Joseph was sold into slavery, and yet he tells his brothers (Paraphrased of course) “God sent me here, to Egypt, with a purpose, to save many lives. He did so through your actions. It was his plan all along. My saving of lives was not His “plan B”. You meant it for evil, God meant it for good.
Again, we see that Josephs’ brothers actions were simply the result of God determining to use them to send Joseph to Egypt for a purpose.
There are many more examples I could take you to, but you cannot deny that two things are true:
1) God determines everything
2) Men make free choices that are in accordance with God’s plan and purpose
So….do you have a problem with that, even though it’s in the Bible?
I’m with cherylu on this one, I don’t find determinism in the bible, the sections that are normally reference simply don’t make a solid enough case (to me that is).
If Adam was created in God’s image and we are sons of Adam and God has free will, then why would we not have free will?.
What point is a creation where Divine Determinism rules the day, Divine Intervention makes more sense, but why would God ‘reason’ with men who are at their nature not free to make choices in the first place.
For me this is the core of Sovereignty, for some it’s that God has to be in control, Deterministic (sometimes exhaustive and sometimes not) that free will when understood in this context is an illusion. Horton and Sproul both go down this road, I couldn’t follow.
I disagree with Michael that it creates tension, I believe it creates a dual nature, controlling on the one hand and desiring mans salvation on the other.
But a God who creates man in his image and then starting with Adam allows him full free will, is far more Sovereign than one who has to be in control. Some will say that determinism came into play after the fall, but then how you explain Gen 4:6?, one generation removed and God gives Cain a choice and then punishes him for that choice.
For me I just can’t make it fit, maybe someday I’ll figure it out. But for now the Arminius view seems a better fit to a very difficult problem, but I reserve the right to change later 😉
-Paul-
“I can’t change it because it’s already happened. ”
Again your thinking here is constrained by time. “Already happened” is a meaningless term to God as our future, past, and present. Speaking of God in terms of time is futile. I don’t want to get into counterfactuals and all sorts of other philosophical garble. It will suffice to say that God is fully aware of every possible action that could occur in a given universe as well as what the consequences of those actions are and what His interactions with the universe will have on the timeline. So for instance God is aware of what would have happened had Lee Harvey Oswald missed JFK.
Joseff,
God is the one however, that determined that every person following Adam would be a sinner because of Adam’s sin, did He not? Or do you not believe in original sin and that we only become sinners when we sin ourselves?
If God made the declaration that all would be sinners because of Adam’s sin, we are all born in sin–with that nature and there is nothing we can do about it–we have no choice in the matter. Therefore, if we can only act according to that nature and can not make any other choice–how can we be held responsible for something we have absolutely no control over? Yes, it was Adam that sinned, but also it was God that determined that everyone one from there on was born in that cursed sin nature.
Besides, there are certainly Calvinists that would say that God determined from all eternity who would be elect and likewise who would be damned. John Calvin stated so from what I have read and I believe John Piper also believes the same way. He is the one that make the determination–not only by passing over some by activels determing that they will be reprobate according to some.
And CMP spoke of the “determinism” in Romans 9 where some people are made as vessels of glory and some as vessels of wrath. With that kind of determinism and no balancing Scriptures given, how can we say that God didn’t make us be the way we are?
I don’t see how that is a strawman argument I am trying to defeat.
Cherylu,
Was it predetermined when you would be born? How about when you die?
Was Christ predetermined to die before the foundation of the world? Why? If Adam was not even around yet to use his magic fairy dust of LFW then why would there have to be a predetermined plan for Christ do die for our sins?
You see if LFW were true then there could be no predetermined plan for Christ before the foundation of the world because Adam had not yet used his magic fairy dust to sin. Since LFW stipulates that nothing can be known about a given choice until it is actually actualized by said person, because remember if LFW were true only the actual agent could bring about the event. Since there was no agent before the foundation of the world to actualize the choice to sin, then there would be no need to have a predetermined plan for Christ to die for mankind’s sin.
Great points Chery.
I do believe in original sin. You are correct that God made Adam, Adam fell, and God decided to put us all under the headship of Adam, coming into the world as fallen. I totally agree.
You ask “Therefore, if we can only act according to that nature and can not make any other choice–how can we be held responsible for something we have absolutely no control over?”
Is that a rhetorical question? It sounds like, on the surface, you have a problem with original sin. If not, let me continue:
Let me give you an analogy.
A dad asks his son to clean the garage. But the son gets so drunk that he passes out and is not unable to clean the garage. Is the son then removed from his responsibility to clean the garage? Is it unjust for the dad to stand firm in his command for his son to clean the garage – and then hold him responsible for not doing it since he’s passed out and unable to?
The idea is, it’s the son’s fault he’s passed out and unable to obey the dad. In like manner, it’s humanity’s fault that we have the natures we have. It’s not unjust for God to expect things from us even though we cannot meet his expectations, in the same way that it’s not unjust for the dad to expect his son to clean the garage, because its the son’s own fault that he is unable to not do it.
Joseff,
Your conclusions to 137 are both non-sequitar and commit the proof by example logical fallacy.
No Arminian believes that God doesn’t act in history so appealing to events in the Bible where God does act in history and predestines certain things to happen is unconvincing. It would be the same as me showing you and Apple and saying that because that Apple is red ALL apples are red. There is no Bible verse that supports the preposition that God determines everything. It is only a conclusion from unnecessary, though possible, inferences.
“There is no Bible verse that supports the preposition that God determines everything.”
You would be wrong my friend, for the Bible tells me that God decides everything down the smallest detail, even seemingly random or insignificant events like the casting of lots (dice)
Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
A dad asks his son to clean the garage. But the son gets so drunk that he passes out and is not unable to clean the garage. Is the son then removed from his responsibility to clean the garage? Is it unjust for the dad to stand firm in his command for his son to clean the garage – and then hold him responsible for not doing it since he’s passed out and unable to?
Let me give you another example. A dad tells his son that he must fly (without any assistance) off the Empire State Building. Is it the sons fault he can’t fulfill his father’s orders?
And it is not a non-sequitur, because the issue at hand is whether choices by individuals are freely made in light of God’s sovereignty.
I argued that both are true, not “either/or”. Two things are true:
1) God determines everything
2) Men make free choices
I concluded that yes, it is true that individual’s choices are free. But it’s also true, at the same time, that God determines everything. In other words, #2 is not false simply because #1 is true, or vice versa.
It’s something the human mind cannot reconcile, I believe.
“Again, we see that Josephs’ brothers actions were simply the result of God determining to use them to send Joseph to Egypt for a purpose”
1) God determines everything
2) Men make free choices that are in accordance with God’s plan and purpose”
Can’t any Calvinist see that your statments here seem to totally contradict each other? If what they did was done simply because God determined it, there doesn’t seem to me at all that there is any free will involved.
Michael, your latest analogy has confused what Edwards calls the difference between natural and moral abilities.
I’m assuming what you’re getting at is that since fallen man cannot repent and believe, God is unjust in asking him (commanding him) to do so, correct?
This is why your analogy fails. Your analogy is an example of natural inability: (ie, a person is unable to do something though he may be willing to do it)
But what Total Depravity teaches is that man has a moral inability (he cannot do something in the sense that he is unwilling to do it, because it is necessary to be willing to do something in order to choose to do it.
In other words, it’s not that fallen, unregenerate man is willing to repent and believe, but cannot due to some kind of natural inability, but that he’s unwilling to do it from the very outset. it is in this sense he is unable to do it.
“Can’t any Calvinist see that your statments here seem to totally contradict each other? If what they did was done simply because God determined it, there doesn’t seem to me at all that there is any free will involved”
Chery, what I’ve explained here is what is called compatibliist free will. Your mistake is assuming that the only definition of “free will” is libertarian free will.
Compatabilist free will says two things are true:
1) God determines everything
2) men make free choices based on what they desire to choose
Both are true. #2 being true does not eliminate #1 or vice versa. This is compatiblist free will.