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”"
Wow, where to begin…
1. What man is unable to do is override his love for himself. He cannot choose to place God as lord over him because of his self worship, not because God is restraining him from doing so. What man cannot conquer, therefore, is his love to shove God off the throne and rule himself instead. This is his choice, and left in it, he is determined to one fate.
2. Adam wasn’t made morally good. Moral goodness is something one gains from what decision one makes in a moral dilemma. The “good” in Gen 1-2 are not talking about Adam’s moral state, but the reversal of chaos into order that will perpetuate human life. When the Bible talks about man being made upright, it is referring to the fact that God did not make him (i.e., morally will him in his creation) to do evil, but to do good; but man sought out the evil instead.
3. I have no problem with God ordaining the Fall, therefore, since His ordination is not forcing the man to choose, but an organization of the events that He knows will lead to man choosing one way, even though He morally wills that the man choose the other. God is not forcing him to choose. God does not make someone do evil; but He may organize the events and influences that cause it in order to do good through it (Gen 50:20).
Therefore, saying someone is robot because of this is just not true. We are finite creatures in a box, and we are influenced by what is in that box, and our previous choices, both individually as people and collectively as the human race.
4. The idea that God is simply seeing eternity all at once instead of seeing in time does not pan out. God is able to see eternity all at once, but clearly also sees in time. Otherwise, Ezekiel 18 would be quite confusing for God who sees both the evil and the good of the same individual at the same exact time. Does He kill or spare the man’s life then?
Sam,
Did you notice the line in Piper’s aritcle, “Why God ordained that evil be”?
This position seems to be definitely stating that God not only dealt with sin after it existed but that He ordained that it had to be in the first place. If you read the whole article, that becomes even more clear.
In another part of the quote from Edwards he says: “If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it.”
Note: Edwards said that God DECREED sin to be.
So now we have God decreeing that sin be, and that some will be rebellious and perish.
Jesus said that we ought not to worry about what we shall eat or what we shall wear, because God feeds the birds every day and clothes the grass of the field (Luke 12: 22-31). So in the matter of the eternal destiny of each individual, does God not also exercise control? He will feed and clothe us but leave our eternal destiny alone? Now as even the ones chosen by God continue to war within themselves, as someone above mentioned, then all would surely lose their salvation if salvation was based upon performance.
God is loving, compassionate and merciful yes; He is also holy, righteous and just. He has chosen to be merciful and save some out of a mass of people who were neither deserving nor worthy of His mercy. Our fallen state Scripture describes as being self-inflicted therefore culpable. As Danquo points out, “With regards to being credited with Adam’s sin, even though we had no choice otherwise, I believe the simple truth is that even if we were all given the “Eden-state” of Adam, we would all choose sin regardless.”
I would add that if we really desire fairness, and think that being credited with Adam’s sin and guilt is unfair, we should also object to Jesus’ righteousness and perfect spotlessness being credited to us despite the fact that we have not and could never have earned it.
CMP, I was wrong. Not about my philosophical statements up top, but about my prediction. I thought this would hit 200 posts yesterday but it hit it today. Sorry about that, brother.
CMP wrote,
Michael,
Falalism, by definition, does not have any outside determining factors. The introduction of God and his plan into a worldview makes fatalism impossible. Fatalism only works in an atheistic worldview.
I don’t think this is necessarily the case. The early Greek Fathers often wrote against the heretics and their “fatalism”. However, such fatalism was often tied to a controlling deity (or deities). For example,
The Banquet of the Ten Virgins xvi: Now those who decide that man is not possessed of freewill, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate…are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils. (emphasis mine)
Methodius of Olympus (c260-martyred 311)
For many more quotes of early Christian fathers who stood against the determinism of the Gnostics and heretics, often using the exact same passages that Arminians appeal to, see here.
There is much more that I would like to address, but I am out of time for now. I am not sure if I will be able to return to this discussion. May God bless you all as you continue to seek Him and His truth.
Ben
5. I also don’t think that the idea of God watching the universe happen, as though it can just run on its own without God. God is the director of what occurs, not a passive agent watching the world go by and responding to it. And I think this causes a problem for the idea that God only chooses to predestine some history and not all of it. How exactly does that happen? How do you have billions of free agents, all determining their own actions, and yet God able to simply make a few changes here and there without affecting the whole? I think the butterfly effect negates this idea.
6. One’s disposition to choose his own rule over God’s is not given by God or forced upon the individual by God. Instead, God has determined that some criminals remain in their treacherous sin to usurp God’s authority over themselves, and others are changed by God, so that they desire His loving care and lordship to rule them instead. One is not comparable to the other. In one, God controls the environment that will control the agents making the choice, and in another, God is directly affecting the agents to make a choice.
19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord . I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. 20 “And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 21 “Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 “And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice [him] and also prevail. Go and do so.’ 23 “Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you.”
“So now we have God decreeing that sin be, and that some will be rebellious and perish.”
Would you rather have God not decree sin but that it take him offguard? Something crept into his own universe that he didn’t – in any sense – want?
That’s absurd to me! It is clear that God ordains sin:
acts 4:27-28 they did whatever God’s hand and plan predestined to take place
Gen 50:20 – you meant it for evil, God meant it for good
Notice, God ‘meant’ it. He brought it to pass. God’s “meant” is active, not passive, in the same way the brother’s “meant” is active, not passive.
1 Kin 22:23 – the Lord put a lying spirit in the mouths of prophets
Exo 4:21 – God tells Moses that He plans to harden Pharaoh’s heart through the events that will be taking place soon
Is there evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it? – Amo 3:6
Finally, we see in Gen 20:6 that God can prevent sin. If he can do that, why didn’t he prevent the first sin, the fall (and every sin after?) Obviously, because he didn’t want to. That’s ordaining sin.
You speak and build arguments as if God ordaining sin and evil is an erroneous, unbiblical thing, but it is not!
The Fathers are addressing Gnostic determinism, not enslavement to sin or total depravity due to separation from God. That’s why Augustine agrees with all of them, and makes these same kinds of statements when referring to material determinism, and other statements concerning the enslavement of humans to rule over themselves instead of Christ. Context is key there.
“We are finite creatures in a box, and we are influenced by what is in that box, and our previous choices, both individually as people and collectively as the human race.”
This should be “We are finite creatures in a box, and we are influenced by what is in that box, and our previous choices, both individually as people and collectively as the human race, determine our choices.”
Just noticed this and thought I should quickly address it:
Sam wrote,
So man in bondage to sin can do nothing but sin. Even this “relative sense” that you wrote about still amounts to nothing more than SIN. I’m struggling to see how LFW is of any use to this man. Sure he can help an old lady cross the road and maybe in a “relative sense” that is “good”, but even this is still SIN. What exactly does LFW accomplish or do for this man? Sure he can go through life doing “good in a relative sense”, but it still amounts to SIN.
LFW accomplishes much with regards to the opportunity to freely choose Christ (through divine enablement) in order to enter into a genuine (rather than artificial) relationship with God (which God apparently values). Free will also preserves our personhood, which God also apparently values. But even more I would contend that the Bible gives sufficient evidence that God has endowed His creatures with a measure of free will and for this reason alone we can conclude that it is important and valued by God.
I am a little amazed with your “help the old lady” example. There is a sense in which all we do prior to conversion is sin since it does not proceed from faith and a loving relationship with God. But it is ridiculous to suggest that there is no difference to be noted between and unbeliever who molests children and one who does not, or an unbeliever who is faithful to his wife and one who commits adultery. Neither is living up to God’s holy standard, but do you really want to suggest that the unbeliever’s ability to refrain from such heinous acts is good for nothing? I should hope not.
Oh, and regarding the follow-up comment saying that our decision for Christ is but filthy rags, we might conclude that there is nothing inherently righteous about putting faith in Christ. Yet God freely credits it as righteousness according to the Scriptures.
I really need to bow out at this point.
God…
Faith in Christ is enough…
but it isn’t OUR DOING!
Faith is a gift of God.
Folks who believe that they have some role to play in their coming to faith, are delusional and have a higher view of mankind than they ought…and a lower view of God than they ought.
Sorry if that offends…but it’s just the plain truth.
There is nothing fatalistic in trusting God to run the universe as He sees fit, including the ordaining of all that happens. It simply means we are not God and that He is control.
It seems free will theorists would rather have man in charge of his own destiny yet seemingly forget that when man did take charge of his destiny (back in the Garden) he fell grievously into sin and so injured himself and his posterity that he no longer desires God nor can even come to God.
If the charge of fatalism is leveled at Calvinists it’s equivalent to saying that God may not determine what happens in His own universe since this would be a kind of determinism that takes away free will from men. No matter that this deterministic scheme is one caused by a good God.
Supposedly God is no longer good if by acting sovereignly he somehow impinges on the free will of humans. But Scripture portrays us as sheep gone stray– creatures lost and stumbling, without God, without hope, dead in sin, under the control of the evil one, under wrath and destined for judgment. It is such that God acts upon to rescue them from their wretched condition, a condition that originated in the first place from humanity acting according to its own free will.
Joseff,
You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with decreeing sin versus it slipping in and taking God by surprise! The Piper article clearly states that there (caps for emphasis) HAS TO BE SIN IN THE WORLD. In other words, it isn’t that God is dealing with something that happened or that He decreed would happen because He knew it would, but rather, it is that to have things the way God wanted them THERE HAD TO BE SIN and that SOME PEPLE THEREFORE HAD TO BE SINNERS and receive the punishment for it.
From the Edwards quote again, “There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from….so evil in necessary,”
Oh, just one last comment as I think this question by Joseff really needs to be addressed.
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?
Yes, I affirm total depravity, but this does not present a problem for me with regards to accountability since I affirm that God enables us to put faith in Christ. But the appeal to natural vs. moral ability is a distinction without a difference that really solves nothing and says nothing. That is all I was pointing out.
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?
First, prevenient grace does not lift someone from his totally depraved state, but gives him ability he would not have of himself in that state. It does not change his nature. But God is not obligated to give such aid unless he wants to judge us as free moral agents, in which case to be just He needs to afford us the means to act as free moral agents. But God is not bound to treat us as free moral agents. He is our Creator and can do anything he wants with us as mere creatures of his. But since God freely decided to judge us as free moral agents and on the grounds of faith or rejection of Christ, then God has freely obligated Himself to be gracious to us by making such a choice possible. This is similar to God giving us grace as Christian believers. He has promised us all sorts of things on the condition of faith. He has freely obligated himself to bless us in various ways if we believe. But this is still grace because we don’t deserve it and God freely promised and obligated himself despite us not deserving it. Similarly, we don’t deserve his help to believe. But because he has freely…
Last sentence got cut off above,
“But because he has freely chosen to treat us as free moral agents, he has also freely obligated himself to enable us to act as free moral agents.”
God Bless,
Ben
AP,
How does LFW preserve our personhood???
If man is in bondage to sin and can do nothing other than sin than he is not free in the standard LFW view and that is why I asked what exactly does it do for this man?
For some reason you go off on some tangent about degrees of sin and how some are more heinous than others, but if even a non heinous sin condemns you I fail to see the point.
What you seem to be saying is that LFW gives man the ability to SIN, he can either commit heinous sin or just run of the mill kind of sin. The one thing that he cannot do is NOT SIN. Yet for some strange reason this preserves man’s personhood???
I just don’t get it, maybe I need to be in the LFW club and be initiated into its sacred rites and have this fairy dust sprinkled all over my personhood.
Hey Sam,
So I’m not AP and I don’t know if I’m part of the “LFW club” or not but I do think that your complaints about “fairy dust” are misplaced. In the article you linked to that purportedly explained Adam’s fall, Adam sinned because Adam had a nature that was capable of sinning. While undeniably true, this is the sort of vague and unhelpful statement that could justifiably leave those of us on the other side with the impression that you do a healthy bit of magic wand-waving yourself.
While I don’t have any great investment in prevenient grace, I think it’s a red herring in this discussion; it focuses too much on the mechanics, and misses the most important question of who ultimately made the decision.
If you argue, as Michael P has, that we always choose whatever our greatest desire is, then your position must be that in order for a person to choose to follow God, God must “reprogram” that person’s likes and dislikes so that he suddenly “likes” God even though he didn’t before.
The reason that Arminians like me object to this is that it looks like tampering on God’s part. God has to compel people to get people to love Him. But love given freely is better than love given under compulsion, for the same reason that Susie choosing freely to go to the Prom with you is better than Susie going to the Prom with you because her Mom made her. I think God always chooses the best. Can you really argue that the “mental rewiring” is “better”?
And Calvinism doesn’t stand or fall on this, but it certainly makes better intellectual sense of why so many people are unsaved. If all that is required for us to follow God is for God to rewire our preferences, and if God doesn’t desire that any should perish, why doesn’t He just rewire /everyone’s/ brain? But if some choose him and some don’t, the phenomenon of many remaining unsaved makes perfect sense with no need to appeal to a mystery. That doesn’t make it true, but certainly it’s a more…
What you call “reprogram” I call rebirth.
Even under your view God knows who would choose for and against, why make the ones he knows will choose against?
Also, are you saying that the people who choose against God would always 100% of the time choose that way? Or would there be a scenario where they would choose God? If so, does God know what scenario they would choose yes too and if yes why does God not do that.
Again, neither you nor AP can give reason how this LFW that AP has defined preserves personhood.
AP writes,
“But because he has freely chosen to treat us as free moral agents, he has also freely obligated himself to enable us to act as free moral agents”.
This sounds like a philosophical statement, rather than a Scriptural one. Please provide the biblical evidence that God has obligated Himself to enable us to act as free moral agents. It seems to me rather that although man is responsible to obey God’s law and to repent of His sin and to believe the gospel of Christ, yet God does not free all from their self-imposed and culpable bondage to sin.
Scripture tells us that there is a right and wrong in the universe which people know by conscience (Rom 2:15), and that moreover God has revealed more specifically what He requires of man by the giving of the law. The gospel also goes out as a call to repent. At the same time Scripture tells us that unregenerate mankind is dead in sin (Eph 2:1), evil (Matt 7:11), enslaved by sin (Rom 6:17), under the sway of Satanic influence (Eph 2:2), sinful by very nature and also habitually (Eph 2:3). Because of this, none can perfectly obey the law and thereby find justification before God (Rom 7:14-25). Also, none is seeking God (Rom 3:23), and none will freely come to Christ apart from God drawing them (John 6:37, 44, 65).
Arminian thought however points to universal prevenient grace as the enabling agent that makes it possible for us to act as free moral agents and choose to accept or reject the offer of Christ. So it seems to be a linchpin in their argument.
Yet the doctrine of prevenient grace as Arminians understand it does not seem to be taught in Scripture. I wrote an article on this on my blog sometime back, Arminianism vs Reformed Theology (Universal Prevenient Grace vs Total Inability, Part I), if anyone is interested in reading a more detailed argument against Arminian prevenient grace.
Joseff,
You said earlier
“First I think I should clarify something. In Romans 9 it clearly says “out of the same lump” some vessels were created for mercy, others for wrath.
Calvinists understand this “lump” to be fallen, sinful, guilty humanity. That is, out of the mass of fallen sinners who all deserve hell, justly, some are given mercy, others are given justice and wrath.
Perhaps this clears things up. It seems like you think Calvinists understand this to simply be saying “God created innocent human beings and then assigned some to heaven or hell without regard to them first being, in His eyes, deserving of either””
I think a couple things need to be said about this.
1. As pointed out by Cheryl this is not what the majority of the popular level five pointers think on this issue. You can try to find loopholes to avoid the conclusion, but logically one must conclude that God from the beginning of time destined and determined by his sole choice that individuals would sin for the sole purpose of displaying his wrath against sin.
2. Even if true my syllogism still holds since according to you (and almost all 5 pointers) all that happens was ordained and determined by God including the original disposition of the “lump” as sinful and fallen.
3. Although I obviously don’t hang my case for Arminianism on a syllogism I made up 24 hours ago I’m interested if anyone can point out which of my premises is incorrect. As is it seems to me that if Calvinism is true then language is meaningless and unintelligible. In what way is the God of Calvinism good, loving, merciful and how do these adjectives in any way resemble the ordinary meaning of these adjectives?
Sam,
I have a question for you. You said, “What you call “reprogram” I call rebirth.” Do you and other Calvinists see rebirth in this context as a separate thing from receiving eternal life? In other words, are we “reborn” twice–as in converted, reprogrammed or whatever you want to call it–and then at a later time receive eternal life? How many infusions of life are you understanding there to be here?
I honestly don’t know what your understanding of this matter is.
“The Fathers are addressing Gnostic determinism, not enslavement to sin or total depravity due to separation from God. That’s why Augustine agrees with all of them, and makes these same kinds of statements when referring to material determinism, and other statements concerning the enslavement of humans to rule over themselves instead of Christ. Context is key there.”
You know I’ve heard Calvinist after Calvinist claim this and I just don’t buy it. Having actually read most of the ante-nicene fathers it seems brutally apparent to me that 1) the were appealing to the same verses Arminian’s appeal to to defend their case, 2) their opponents were appealing to the same verses Calvinists appeal too and they were responding with interpretations of those verses similar to what Arminian’s respond with, and 3) the beliefs of the Gnostics with regards to fatalism are eerily similar to Calvinisitic beliefs though Calvinists try to find loop holes to dodge the label.
““But because he has freely chosen to treat us as free moral agents, he has also freely obligated himself to enable us to act as free moral agents.””
This makes absolutely no sense to me, with all due respect. Let me give you my analogy again.
A dad asks his son do a particular chore. The son is able to do it. But the son chooses to disobey and get drunk, so he is now passed out, incoherent, and unable to obey the dad’s command.
What you’re saying is that the dad, at this point, must lend help to the son and re-enable him to do the chore. Otherwise, the dad would be unjust in standing firm in his command for the son do to the chore.
This makes no sense to me. The dad is under no obligation to lend help to the son. The son disobeyed and gave up his freedom. He rebelled. He didn’t want to obey the dad. He was irresponsible. The son’s own self-inflicted inability does not place the dad under any sort of obligation to help the son become “able” to obey. The son’s own self-inflicted inability does not suddenly change the rules of fairness and justice.
You’re saying that God, in order to be just, MUST give prevenient grace or else he cannot (justly) command men to repent and believe.
Adam was in a perfectly good relationship with God, then Adam disobeyed and Fell. You’re saying that it would be UNJUST of God to continue to expect/demand that fallen Adam still remain in that good relationship with God, since Adam cannot anymore, due to sin. So to remain Just, God must help Adam out and give him the ability again.
I do not buy this. It makes no sense biblically or judicially. It is against reason.
“Sam,
I have a question for you. You said, “What you call “reprogram” I call rebirth.” Do you and other Calvinists see rebirth in this context as a separate thing from receiving eternal life? In other words, are we “reborn” twice–as in converted, reprogrammed or whatever you want to call it–and then at a later time receive eternal life? How many infusions of life are you understanding there to be here? ”
That’s simply biblical language, Chery.
The new birth is being “born again”, which is mandatory for a person to even perceive, let alone enter, the kingdom of God. Paul says “you were dead, and God made you alive, by grace you have been saved” (Eph 2).
Regeneration is what changes our stony, rebellious hearts into hearts that are alive and desire to obey God. It is mandatory for anyone to embrace Jesus Christ, for a person cannot do that with a stony heart that hates Christ!
Regeneration leads to faith, faith leads to justification (eternal life).
This all happens simultaneously, not at different moments in time. Like a pool ball striking another pool ball. They strike each other at the same time, but the one moving has causal priority. When a person is regenerated, they believe in Jesus Christ. That’s the natural result of a heart that goes from spiritually dead to spiritually alive.
If you want to understand my view then just look to the WCF, either the long or short one will suffice and it will give you a good idea of what I believe.
I really do not have the foggiest idea what your question about number of infusions of life means or why you think it pertinent to this thread or discussion. Needless to say I was arguing against LFW, mainly as expressed by AP. You seem to back away from the outright embrace of LFW so I see no need to continue down these many rabbit trails that some want to take this thread.
If you do want to understand “what my understanding on this matter” is or any other theological matter then WCF is the place to go.
Hi Sam,
I don’t think it matters whether you call it “reprogram”, “rebirth”, or anything else. The question is whether being “reprogrammed” or “reborn” is coercive or not. Under your view, it’s coercive.
“Even under your view God knows who would choose for and against, why make the ones he knows will choose against? ”
Let’s say (hypothetically) that someone in your ancestry was a non-believer. But without that person having existed, neither would you have existed. God had sufficient desire that you, who would choose Him, should exist that He was willing to tolerate the existence of your ancestor who rejects Him (although He’d of course have preferred that your ancestor chose Him as well).
“Also, are you saying that the people who choose against God would always 100% of the time choose that way? Or would there be a scenario where they would choose God?”
I don’t know the answer to this with certainty. I’d be inclined to believe, based on my understanding of God’s mercy, that no one who would be inclined to choose God would be denied the opportunity to do so simply because “the appropriate circumstance never came up.” At the same time, I think we’re obligated to spread the Gospel and insure that people DO have the opportunity to hear and respond to it. These don’t harmonize perfectly, but then Calvinism is subject to a pretty similar incongruity.
Joseff,
The point is, we are NOT the original Adam. We never had the choice to obey or not to obey. The issue here seems to be that we can not choose to do anything but sin because it is our nature. In your analogy the son COULD choose to obey and not to get drunk but chose to disobey. Or at least that is the way I understood the analogy. That is why I don’t see the analogy as working.
The point that I have been trying to make is that since we have no choice about the kind of people we are, how can we be held morally responsible for something we can not help but do because God has decreed that is the way it will be and that we will indeed rebel? How is it fair, or just, or good, or loving, or merciful in any normal sense of the word to those people to hold them eternally responsible for something He said they had to do and therefore they could not do otherwise? And not only does He hold them eternally responsible, but punishes them eternally in a very horrible way for it? (A punishment, by the way, that He has told us we are to avoid at all costs. How are we to avoid it if He has made it so that we have to go there and can not escape it?)
Or is God, in your understanding, only interested in being merciful and good and loving to a small portion of humanity and the rest, the great majority, He is only interested in showing justice for sin and wrath to?
That later view flies in the face of so mush of the rest of Scripture that I can not understand that is what God means in Romans 9 even if the “clear reading” of that portion does say that. Taken within the context of much of the rest of Scripture, it seems to me that there must be another understanding.
Tell Lazarus that Jesus was coercive when he brought him back to life. lol
You want me to believe that God can turn rocks into children of Abraham, but he needs an un-repentant sinner to bring about a believers existence. Really, this thread has gotten sillier and sillier.
I don’t see why LFW precludes personhood, but perhaps it might exclude static personhood. I have no problem with personhood — the essence of “who we are” being dynamic; I suggested earlier that it makes sense to think of it as in some sense the destination your choices lead you to, rather than the navigation device that exhaustively determines your choices.
At the same time, my favorite book is Lewis’ Great Divorce and I love the final scene of that book where…well, I won’t spoil it if you haven’t read it. But suffice to say, it suggests a way of looking at things whereby there is some “eternal” or “immutable” part of ourselves. It would be tough for me to go against Lewis if it came down to it, so I guess I’m at least sympathetic to Michael’s view of personhood, even though I still think it’s inadequately explained at present.
Seems you all cannot accept the fact that because of Adam you are what you are because “whah, whah” that would just not be fair. How could you hold me accountable for what someone else did?
How can God justify you because of what someone else did? Or are you all against imputed righteousness as well.
This is what happens when someone speaks against the idol of free will. Man gets all flustered and whiny, oh how could it be that’s just not fair.
What’s not fair is that Christ took the penalty rightly due you and washed away your sins by becoming sin. What’s not fair is that the only man without sin was made sin so that you could be justified by a holy God. What’s not fair is that the only man that obeyed all of the law was counted guilty by God.
The truth of the matter is that you all don’t want what is fair; you only want to have power. You want to be “as gods”, so you cling to your man centeredness.
“Tell Lazarus that Jesus was coercive when he brought him back to life. lol”
I don’t think you owe me the courtesy of engaging my remarks intellectually, but I hope you at least recognize that with snarky comments like this, you show no evidence of having done so.
“You want me to believe that God can turn rocks into children of Abraham, but he needs an un-repentant sinner to bring about a believers existence.”
Perhaps not to bring about any believer’s existence, but to bring about your existence, specifically? Yes, absolutely (at least, if we are speaking of your existence coming about via the ordinary mechanisms that God put into place at creation, as opposed to creating you ex nihilo, which I don’t think you’re alleging happened in your case!). You yourself think that, if you agree with Michael’s opening post, which states quite unambiguously that “who you are” is determined to large degree by your genetics, country of birth, etc.
Your question, “why make the ones he knows will choose against?”, has been answered. Of course, my answer isn’t the only one that’s available, it’s just the easiest. I’m not sure how many it would take to satisfy you.
Chery, are you saying you reject the doctrine of Original sin, that say we are born as sinners and in a totally depraved state?
If so, I wonder if you reject Paul’s statements that we cannot obey God’s laws? That we are, and I quote “unable to” (Rom 8:7-8). You must, to be consistent. Because you must find it unjust that God would ask us to do what we cannot do.
Yet isn’t this the very heart of the gospel? The gospel is that I acnnot obey God, therefore I need a Saviour. If i were to line up with your thinking, I would change the gospel to say “I can obey God, but i accidentally messed up, so I guess I’m lucky that Jesus is there to benefit my situation”
You said:
Taken within the context of much of the rest of Scripture, it seems to me that there must be another understanding.”
I must translate this as “Well I don’t know how to reconcile that with what I believe about God, so there MUST be some other explanation”
Joseff,
(First of all, small point here–my name is not Chery, it is Cheryl)
Secondly, this is not a rabbit trail nor an inconsequential point, nor am I arguing that a person does not have to be reborn.
The point is that non Calvinists see faith as coming before regeneration, not after it. So for you to say to us that we have to be regenerated before we can have faith is backwards in our understanding. That is why I asked what I did. I did not understand how your system worked.
In our way of thinking, being reborn or born again, is the same as having eternal life. And the Bible makes it very clear that eternal life comes as the result of faith. We see rebirth, justification, and intitial sanctification as being something that all comes at the same time as the result of faith.
So you see a person as being reborn, what I called one “infusion of life”, and then receiving faith by which you receive eternal life. (The second “infusion of life”.) This whole process is seen quite differently by the two sides of this issue.
Cherylu, thank you. I must point out that I added to my comment. Could you re-read it? It seems you were writing a response at the same time I was adding to my comment, lol
Sam, you are as lousy an interpreter of motives as you are a proponent for Calvinism. (*)
This has nothing to do with wanting to be the center of the universe. Rather, I think God’s glory is more clearly displayed when He receives love that is freely given, then when people love Him simply because He has compelled them to do so. Love freely given is better than love given under coercion. Do you agree or disagree with this?
This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with sanctification or justification. The fact that I accepted God’s gift says nothing about me. He deserves all the glory for extending the offer, for paying the cost of my sin on my behalf, for cleaning me up from a worthless sinner into a vessel fit for his use. He gets all the glory; I deserve and desire none of it.
(*) I probably deserve to get whacked by a mod for that one.
Please folks, the snarky comments and accusations here are starting to get a bit out of control. Remember the blog rules state that tact and respect are to be used at all times on this site.
C Michael Patton has been known to shut down discussions here when things start to get too nasty. Let’s not go there, o.k.?
I’m trying to at least be playfully snarky. But maybe that doesn’t come through very well over the internet.
JB,
Do you deny that God could have made a world where no one sins?
When it comes to personhood, let’s try one more time. The agreement was that natural man in bondage to sin CAN ONLY SIN. That being so then what good is it to have LFW? An unbeliever is in bondage to sin, all he can do is sin. How exactly is this different from the Calvinistic view?
Jake, I am not sam, but I would like to respond if you would have it.
you said:
—
This has nothing to do with wanting to be the center of the universe. Rather, I think God’s glory is more clearly displayed when He receives love that is freely given, then when people love Him simply because He has compelled them to do so. Love freely given is better than love given under coercion. Do you agree or disagree with this?
—
Friend, saying that Arminians want to be the center of the universe is a terrible way of saying it. Even pejorative. But really, isn’t that what’s going on here? We all agree that determinism happens in the universe. Either God determines something, or creatures determine something. Why is it that Arminians argue in defense of the creatures, but Calvinists argue in defense of the Creator? Given the choice between the two, it would seem that Christians would immediately seek to defend God and His determination, etc. In other words, why take the side of the sinner over the side of the Holy Creator who plainly says in scripture that it is always just of him to “do what He wills with His own”. It just feels so unnatural to choose the side of B over A, when A is God.
Second, who says that Calvinists say that love for God is not freely given? Don’t you understand the doctrine of regeneration? When a heart of stone is turned into a heart of flesh, it is spiritually alive and in tune with the things of God, therefore freely loves God. Regeneration is a taking OFF of the chains of sin’s enslavement, not adding new chains that “forces us” to do something.
I wonder, what is your understanding of this verse: We love him because he first love us.
Do you know that the word “because” is not a word of motives, but a word of causation. In other words, the verse is not saying “I am freely motivated to love God because God first loved me”. Rather, it is saying “The REASON, the cause, of my love for God, is that He first…
JB,
What makes you different than your unbelieving neighbor? You cannot say God, so it must be something or someone else. Can’t be grace either because your unbelieving neighbor has that too, so tell me what makes you different?
Joseff,
Sorry, wrong translation!
And yes, I do believe in original sin. That is not my point at all. I have explained what I am questioning and the objections I have repeatedly here and I simply do not have the time or energy to try to do it one more time.
But I think one point I may not have made before is this one. Let’s just lay aside the idea that God decreed that sin and evil had to be in the world to make it the way He wanted it to be and then decreed that certain people would be rebellious like was discussed above regarding Piper and the belief of some Calvinists.
Let’s take it from the other perspective that God is only dealing with this from the perspective of the “lump” of people that have already become rebellious. How is God showing His love to those people that He is ignoring–passing over–and sending to hell? How does that fit with, “God so loved the world”, “He is not willing that any should perish”, “choose you this day whom you will serve,” and the verses where Jesus tells His listeners to avoid hell at all costs? These are some of the verses and words in the Bible that seem to become utter nonsense in light of even the mildest Calvinist understanding. And, incidentally they are some of the ones that I spoke of when I said the context of the whole Bible makes me think there must be some other way to understand these things.
“Do you deny that God could have made a world where no one sins?”
No.
“When it comes to personhood, let’s try one more time. The agreement was that natural man in bondage to sin CAN ONLY SIN. ”
That isn’t how I’d put it; or at least, I wouldn’t draw the conclusions from it that you are drawing. If that’s your starting point, I’ll bow out and let you have out that discussion with those who do affirm this but also hold that we have LFW.
“What makes you different than your unbelieving neighbor? You cannot say God, so it must be something or someone else. Can’t be grace either because your unbelieving neighbor has that too, so tell me what makes you different?”
I don’t understand the importance of the question, or at least why it seems to you more important than responding to the many questions that are already on your plate.
I will again give an entirely speculative answer and say that it’s simply that I said yes to God’s offer of salvation and that the neighbor has not said yes to God’s offer of salvation. I don’t think there’s all that much more to it than that. There’s certainly nothing special about me.
Cherylu, hehe, that’s sort of the translation I meant. Let me explain.
I said it sounded like this “My understanding of God (God’s love) is X, and Romans 9 doesn’t fit well with X, so there must be some other explanation.
And what you’ve done is point out several scripture references where you draw “X” from, such as John 3:16, and 2 Peter 3:9. This is exactly what I mean. I would love to take the time and talk about those individual verses with you. You see, you are reading Romans 9 in light of what you THINK is the meaning of John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Well, what if you could be convinced, through a study of those verses, that they don’t actually MEAN what you THINK they mean? Then you would read Romans 9 in a different light because your presuppositions about God and God’s love would be drastically different, right?
So I think my interpretation of what you said pretty much hit the nail on the head!
I still thing the garage-cleaning analogy holds up pretty well, except that there’s no tempting agent to set the set the sin in motion.
We have no timeframe on how long Adam tended the Garden before Eve was created, nor any timeframe on how long they were both living in the Garden until the serpent came to disrupt things.
What we do know is that some time passed (Adam was able to name all the animals at least, which must have taken some time). In all of their time in the Garden prior to the serpent’s actions, they did not sin, even though the opportunity was there to do so.
Now we can’t assume that they would have gone on forever and never sinned. But we know that the serpent was instrumental in sparking Eve’s desire for the fruit (with a lie). But the serpent isn’t responsible (solely) for Eve’s desire turning into sin. As was mentioned previously, I think, Eve’s desire was not sinful (desire to be like God and/or desire for a good looking fruit to eat), but her action was. Adam’s desire was not sinful (not given specifically but possibly the same as Eve’s as well as desire to be like his mate), but his action was as well.
I still think that the “we are not Adam and never had the choice” defense doesn’t work. Even if we had “the choice” we may choose correctly for some time, but whenever the tempting agent (serpent) came along and lied to us about something, we’d certainly fall into the same trap.
I think it’s an inevitability of humanity — our representatives were created with the capability to sin (Adam-state) but had no predisposition to do so. But when an outside agent interfered, it “tipped the scales” so to speak and since they had the ability to sin, they did. Since we are of the same stock, we would inevitably do the same even if we were born in an Adam-state. But we aren’t. Adam’s fall changed his very nature, and thus the nature of all his progeny.
Jake Blues, he asks a legit and fair question.
If God is graciously tugging all people equally with prevenient grace, then it cannot be grace that makes person A (who believes) differ from person B (who rejects).
So it’s not grace that made the difference, it’s something else. And since your theology says that persons A and B have final, self determination of whether or not they will be a believer, then the difference lies within the people.
So the ultimate reason person A is in heaven and person B is not, is not God’s grace (for God’s grace was given equally), but something about person A.
Person A was either smarter, less prideful, more spiritual, more humble. SOMETHING. There was SOME difference, some intrinsic good quality or factor about person A.
This is why Spurgeon (I think) said Arminianism was salvation by works dressed up in evening clothes. When something self-wrought (in this case faith) is meritorous for salvation, it’s essentially works.
I did X to get into heaven. = I’m saved by what I did.
But Calvinism says X is something God does, in that faith is a gift from God and result of regeneration and was purchased by Christ on the cross then applied to me. Not something I conjured up. Not my contribution to my own salvation.
Joseff,
Sure thing, I appreciate your response!
“Why is it that Arminians argue in defense of the creatures, but Calvinists argue in defense of the Creator?”
I don’t intend to be taking the creatures’ side as opposed to God’s. Rather, it’s just my understanding that God has extended an offer to us — the blood of Christ — and that He asks us to respond to that offer. He won’t force us to accept it, /even if it would be to our benefit and enjoyment were He to do so/, because compulsion, while (maybe) not incompatible with His nature, is at a minimum incompatible with His priorities and preferences.
“Don’t you understand the doctrine of regeneration? When a heart of stone is turned into a heart of flesh, it is spiritually alive and in tune with the things of God, therefore freely loves God.”
I don’t mean to be argumentative, really and truly — but, how is this process different from brainwashing, in your view? Is brainwashing permissable as long as the person being brainwashed will like the outcome?
“I wonder, what is your understanding of this verse: We love him because he first love us.”
Very quick response when you deserve a much more thorough and thought-out one, but I’d simply say that God demonstrates His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. If God hadn’t shown us His love to this degree, we should never have responded to Him, but because I (for example) saw that He loved me, I loved Him in return. I think the verse shows that God’s love is proactive and ours is reactive. I certainly agree His love is causative, but perhaps not that it is irresistable.
Hope this helps. I appreciated your observations and questions.
Joseff,
We all bring our presuppositions to anything, you have your’s and I have mine. CMP has his and willingly admits it as do I.
You wrote
“And what you’ve done is point out several scripture references where you draw “X” from, such as John 3:16, and 2 Peter 3:9. This is exactly what I mean. I would love to take the time and talk about those individual verses with you. You see, you are reading Romans 9 in light of what you THINK is the meaning of John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Well, what if you could be convinced, through a study of those verses, that they don’t actually MEAN what you THINK they mean? Then you would read Romans 9 in a different light because your presuppositions about God and God’s love would be drastically different, right?”
The question is why not read Romans 9 in light of John 3:16 etc.? There has been no good reason presented to apply the hermeneutic you suggest and I believe there has been a fairly good reason to read it with the hermeneutic suggested by myself and Cheryl. You simply can only stretch the meaning of words so far before they become meaningless. Saying “God is good” may not be a one to one correlation with the human conception of “good”, but it must resemble the ordinary understanding of what good is if the word “good” is to be of any meaning.
Well Joseff, hehe, I have been down that road multiple times with other Calvinists on other threads and they have yet to convince me that those verses don’t mean what I think they do.
And can you please tell me how I am to know that your whole understanding of this situation isn’t simply based on what YOU THINK these verses mean??
Please Calvinists, try to stop the belittling of others here. We know you are super convinced that your position is the right one. We do not need snarky and belittling comments to prove that fact to us.