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”"
Cherylu, perhaps a different understanding of God’s love will help. I don’t think it can be proved from the Bible that God loves all men equally. That is, he has love for all men, but not the same kind of love for all men.
For example, I am commanded to love all of my neighbors, yet I am also commanded to have a special love for Christians, and my wife, etc.
Amazingly Paul compares the love Jesus has for his church to the special love a husband has for his wife in Eph 5:25. Jesus always makes special references to “My sheep”, “my friends”, “my brethren”, etc. These are references to believers, aka, the elect.
I ask you, if you would agree that God would be perfectly just, fair, and good to send 100% of humanity to hell, how can it be argue that God is LESS loving to actually come in and save a great multitude of humanity and let the rest perish into the hell you already agreed they deserve?
That sounds extremely loving and gracious to me. To say that God is obligated to give a “chance” is to say that the bottom line is that men do NOT deserve hell. But if hell is owed, a chance is not obligatory. Chance can be withheld without a loving character being compromised.
As for the Bible verses you pointed out, much could be said about all of them my friend, but I assure they do nothing to damage the Biblical doctrine of election. For example, “I wish the wicked would turn from his ways” (Ezek). This is a verse speaking about God wishes men would do, not what God Himself will do. A verse saying what God wishes men would do does not suddenly destroy all of those verses about election that speak of God actually decrees to do (save a people for himself)
None of those verses do any violence to Calvinistic election. Nor do they shape God’s “love” in such a way that he would never mercifully elect a people for Himself for His own glory.
Joseff,
Was the earthly father in my analogy loving to the children he refused to help and forgive? Not in any way I can see. What I am saying about God is the same thing.
Besides that, I still do not see in any way how people in the Calvinist system are free to make their own choice when God plans all of the details. It is certainly not true in the forms of Calvinism that John Piper seems to believe from what was written in the article discussed above. (I kind of remember reading another article by him where he didn’t say the same thing. However the article above was extremely strong that God had to have evil in the world and there had to be punishment etc. or it wouldn’t be the kind of world that God wanted. I don’t know the dates of either–maybe his views have changed one way or the other).
So how is it just or loving either one to put a group of people in a place where they deserve hell and then give it to them? If these were not people, sentient beings that we are talking about here that will suffer terribly forever in this situation, this would be a different story all together.
I didn’t even try to put that last element into my analogy of the earthly father. I assumed all of the children had the choice to obey or not and it wasn’t in any way forced upon them by their father.
I simply can not wrap my mind around choosing to place some people in a no win situatation where they can only sin and then refusing to offer them the remedy for it while freely offering it to others.
I would say it is a mistake to use that sort of an analogy to understand God’s relationship with creatures. It’s one thing to picture a humanly father figure with his human children. It’s another to picture the thrice Holy God, the Creator, who is Holy and infinitely separate from creation, with his creatures.
You can’t draw a picture of creature vs creature, and then compare that to Creator vs creature.
—
So how is it just or loving either one to put a group of people in a place where they deserve hell and then give it to them?
—
But Cherylu, you don’t escape the dilemma here. For you admitted you affirmed original sin. In a sense you DO believe that God put people in a place where they deserve hell and then gives it to them. I’m not sure how this dilemma is unique to the doctrine of election.
“I simply can not wrap my mind around choosing to place some people in a no win situatation where they can only sin and then refusing to offer them the remedy for it while freely offering it to others.”
I know how you must feel. I was there too. But there’s no getting around the texts of the Bible that affirm such a thing Cherylu.
Consider the entire Old Testament era. Every nation on earth was left in darkness by God. He only revealed himself to Israel. He didn’t give promises, prophets, the law, or scripture writers, or men with great spiritual gifts (Samson, etc) to any other nation in the entire earth. Paul tells us that the gospel we know today was “in other times not made known to the sons of men”
There are thousands of years of human history in which God left the great majority of mankind in complete darkness. . This explains why Paul said the Jews had a great advantage over the Gentiles (Romans 3:1-2). They were graciously given access to the truth of Scripture while millions of Gentiles around them were perishing, “having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12). “[God] declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; and as for His judgments, they have not known them. Praise the Lord!” (Psalm 147:18-19) Yes, the psalter tells us to praise the Lord for His exclusive, particular grace. Yet you are wanting me to praise the Lord for a universal, omnibenevolence!
If you’re willing to admit that God worked this way in the OT, only revealing himself to some, but not all, why do you suddenly expect him to work different in the NT? The same is true Cherylu, God is saving elect people from all people groups on earth, but not all people head for head on earth. That’s the God of the Bible. We need to bow down to this and not question His decisions.
Joseff,
As Michael T has said, it is vastly different if you believe that people have a say in the issue, a choice to refuse to accept God’s offer of salvation, then it is to say they are never given an offer of salvation at all. That is the difference–and in my understanding, it is a huge one.
I am now 60 years old. My very earliest memories of learning about God from the time I was a very young child was the basic, “God IS love”. I grew up being told that Jesus died for all and that He wants to save all although not every one will accept that offer. I remember singing “Jesus loves me” and “Jesus loves the little children, ALL the children of the world” from the time I was probably 4 years old or younger. Do you have any idea how impossible the tenents of Calvinism appear to me and to my very basic understanding of who God is, what He is like, and how He relates to His creation? They are almost a 180 degree shift in thinking!
I totally understand Cherylu. But you must have been raised in an Arminian church!
Consider the scenario from someone else’s shoes, being raised in a reformed church learning of God’s covenant love and promises to save a people for himself out mercy and grace. And then entering the world and being exposed to modern day arminianism. It, too, would be a shock!
You can’t let your traditions determine your beleifs. We must check everything against the Bible. The truth is, most Calvinists today are converted Arminians. We’ve all had to deal with those issues. But at the end of the day, when you go to the Bible, you learn Calvinism. That’s pretty much the bottom line. I know it sounds biased, and don’t take my word for it, study it yourself. What you hate now, you may fall in love with.
I noticed you totally avoided the facts from the scripture I presented in that God freely dispenses his grace and mercies on particular people. Even in the Old Testament he did this. Your reply was that you still want to cling to “God loves ALL”, even though that is an impossible conclusion if you read the Bible!
God loved Israel. How much did he love Egypt? Or any of the other pagan nations on earth?
Jesus plainly told us that he spoke in parables to reveal the truth for those it was intended and conceal it from those it was not meant for.
Jesus told us that nobody can know the Father except that He Himself reveals the Father to them. Tell me, why doesn’t He reveal the Father to all of humanity head for head?
Faith can only come from hearing the gospel. Tell me, why does God let billions of people throughout human history perish in complete ignorance of the gospel, never hearing the name of Jesus? God could easily send angels, or write the gospel in the clouds, or send missionaries, but he doesn’t.
Tell me, why in John 17 did Jesus outright say “I am NOT praying for the world, but only for those you have given me”.
. I have to be gone for most of the rest of the morning, so have no time for further interaction now.
Tell me, why did Paul endure all things for the elect only if he was trying to get everyone saved?
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Christ makes clear that if the works he did in Capernaum would have been done in Sodom, it would have never been destroyed. If the works done in Tyre and Sidon would have been done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, they would have most assuredly repented. (Mat 11:21-23). If Christ was so certain that these towns would have repented if mighty works had been done in them, why didn’t God do them? Doesn’t God want all men to repent and be saved? Tell me, why didn’t God do the work that he KNEW would result in repentance?
Over and over again we see God’s Sovereign decision to reveal His truth to some and withhold it from others. We see that God gives the gifts of repentance and faith to some, but not all. Christ prays and mediates as High Priest for some, but not all. This is His decision. He gives mercy to whom he will, and He passes over – as a form of justice – others.
For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
(Rom 9:15-16)
I ask, how much does God’s mercy depend on the human will? Paul says, zero %. None of it. It DOES NOT DEPEND on human will, but on God who gives mercy, freely, to whomever He desires 🙂
The objections MichaelT and Cheryl raise seem especially to have to do with whether God is just and fair and loving in sending people to hell who apparently have no other choice than be sent there, given God’s sovereign control as described by Calvinists.
Yet as Joseff points out the free will or Arminian view does not solve this dilemma, since God still created a hell to punish people He knew in advance would reject Him. As has been asked, why not save all then, or why create people predestined to hell? If by their own free will men send themselves to hell (thus relieving God of responsibility?), yet this doesn’t negate the fact that God created a hell where people he created will be punished, and that He knew in advance they would never repent and thus end up there. So does a free will view really mitigate this problem of hell? It does not seem so.
As I see it the Bible indicates that man makes genuine, free choices that have eternal consequences, and at the same time affirms God’s sovereign control over all things. Others provided some examples of this earlier in the discussion– Judas acted evilly in betraying Jesus, an act for which he is described as being fully responsible. He is judged by God for it. And yet the Bible says that Judas acted according to the purpose of God and fulfilled what God ordained to happen.
The common view of what good means is not contradicted in most of what God continually does by His giving countless blessings– health, talents, ability to earn a living, food, clothing, friendships, family and life itself. These are of course often given to people in rebellion against Him, who don’t even acknowledge Him. But when it comes to predestining some to hell or some to heaven, the objection is raised that this is not good, that good is being redefined. But if it is acknowledged that mankind is totally depraved and that all have gone astray and are by nature objects of wrath (as asserted in scripture), (continued)
then God has no obligation to save any, and in saving only some is displaying His mercy and goodness. Again, if it is unjust that all are implicated in Adam’s sin, then it is also “unjust” that the sins of men are forgiven through no works of their own but completely in Jesus, who pays for them on our behalf. God did not leave the world in misery and sin, but made a way of escape and salvation.
Understanding how God is sovereign while at the same time man still responsible is difficult to wrap one’s mind around, I agree, but it is certainly biblical.
And, at this time God is being incredibly good and merciful to all wretched sinners as He withholds His wrath. The vast majority of sin will go completely unpunished in this here-and-now world as we now know it….sometimes we experience ‘natural consequences’ but that’s a far cry from the punishment we deserve. God is good to all in this life, though we don’t deserve it.
I finally started reading what’s been coming into my inbox from this thread. Excellent discussion!
Excellent posts Alexander M Jordan!
I couldn’t help but be reminded, and then deciding to post, this Spurgeon quote relevant to our discussion:
——————-
The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, “The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”
I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.
(cont)
That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring!
—————
end quote
I think this sums it up nicely. We cannot reconcile the two truths that 1) God is sovereign and yet 2) Man makes choices and is held responsible for them.
We cannot understand this with our finite minds. We simply must believe them because it’s what the Bible teaches.
Not quite gone yet!
Thanks for that Spurgeon quote. I think maybe part of the problem, as I see it is exactly what he spoke of–the Arminian side does emphasize the free will side. On the other hand, the Calvinist side seems to emphasize the other side almost exclusively. You seem to acknlowledge that there is a free will involved–as we acknowledge God is sovereign–but then emphasize the sovereignty to the point where the “free will” seems to become totally eclipsed. On the other hand, you I am sure, would say the reverse to be true about the other side! I think at this point in time I am going to leave it all as a mystery I can’t begin to wrap my mind around and not even try to figure it out anymore. I really don’t think either side of this issue has it all figured out!
Thanks all for the discussions!
I remember someone–don’t know if it was on this site or another–that referred to themselves as a “Calminian”. Maybe that isn’t such a bad term!
Cheryl,
I do think that Calvinists are often very bad at communicating what they think about “choice” and “will”.
You might check Dan Phillips’ series on “communicating better”, aimed at clearing up such things. It has a couple entries on “choosing”. (You might also check the first entry in the series, for an explanation of how it works.)
Hehe, Cherylu, I would argue that it’s Calvinism that is the middle ground!
Calvinism is the middle ground between hyper Calvinism and Arminianism. So a Calminian is not a middle ground position!
1) God is sovereign and determines everything
2) man is responsible for his actions
Hyper Calvinism adheres to #1 to the exclusion of #2
Arminianism adheres to #2 to the exclusion of #1
As someone said once, “Hyper-Calvinism is all house and no door; Arminianism is all door and no house.”
It is Calvinism, not Calminanism (lol), that fully adheres to #1 and #2 simultaneously and admits that it’s a mystery. As you can see for yourself, the Arminian gentlemen in this very discussion found fault with Calvinists affirming the mystery behind these things.
There are however dangers in seeing ONLY one of those two parallel lines without being able to receive the other. Armenians will fear the possibility that although they were once an adopted child of God they might one day be un-adopted because of some particularly ‘bad’ sin. On the other hand, if one believes that since God sovereignly determines who is predestined then He can’t hold men accountable for their choices…and we don’t need to share the gospel, that is also going to affect how we live.
Michael and Cherylu,
I think you guys missed half of what I said and just kind of picked out what you wanted to address. Maybe that’s my lack of communication skills.
1. I cannot define “good” apart from the exaltation of God and the preservation of His people. My definition of “good” comes from the Bible, where that is displayed time and time again in the exodus and the wars, where God is exalted in preserving His people and destroying the enemy (chaotic agents that bring chaos to God’s people instead of order and life preservation). “Good” reflects the entire nature of God, not just a distortion that emphasizes a single attribute (thus creating a false god), and it is also in relation to the preservation of the righteous, not the wicked. Hence, all would be destroyed, but God then would not exalt His whole nature. Hence, the power, justice, holiness, and goodness of God is displayed in His destruction of the wicked, and His mercy, love, compassion, grace, and goodness is displayed in the salvation of His people. “Good,” therefore, relates only to God and what He does with the righteous and the wicked.
2. “How is it loving to send people to hell? Very simple. They chose of their own free will to be there.”
But this misses the point. All Calvinists would agree with this statement. This is not the point of departure. I said before, God doesn’t force anyone to reject Him. People do that of their own accord. God has created the circumstances that indirectly influence the person, but does not directly do so. The person’s problem, then, is that when God creates a circumstance where a person will be tempted to do Wicked Action A instead of Good Action B, the wicked person will always choose Wicked Action A, not because God is forcing Him to do so, but because the person really wants to do Wicked Action A, and the circumstance provides the vehicle through which his wicked desires, and God’s holiness through judging them, can be displayed…
Both of you seem to miss this point. God is not forcing anyone to do evil. God does not tempt any man. God creates the world and directs it influences and circumstances, but not the wicked decisions of men directly. He is able to control their wicked desires, however, by knowing what they will do in this circumstance versus that one. So He isn’t placing an evil nature in them. They chose it and it is already there. The question for God is what to do with it in a world where He must display who He is in truth and save His chosen people in that truth.
3. So I’ve already answered objection 3. If God were to save everyone, then He would distort who He is. Hence, He would convey a false god to His people; and if their knowing the true God is eternal life, then ironically, in a world that God would save everyone, He would save no one.
Finally, I do think that your definitions are arbitrary and really just based on your own concepts. The concepts of both “love” and “good” each have so many definitions even within our own culture that to try and fit them to the Bible is inappropriate. To give you an example, hell itself, even if one deserves it, is seen as unloving and evil. So our culture does not think God is good and loving by sending people there. Another example is the homosexuality debate. Anyone who says that it is wrong is automatically unloving and not good, regardless of how loving and good one might be in seeking to turn people away from a heinous sin. I could go on and on, but our culture does not get to define goodness, even though it tries to center all things around itself (and of course it would as an atheistic society). The definitions that we gain from God’s existence must come from God Himself and through His revelation. So I would agree that calling God good and loving with the definitions our culture give to those terms may not be a good thing without defining them appropriately, as perhaps our problem has been in evangelical culture that…
distorted the attributes of God.
I also just wanted to clarify that Wicked Action A has to do with an action that does not exalt God as Lord over one’s life. I’m talking about helping old ladies across the street, etc.
Hodge,
As much as you think we miss the point, we think you completely and utterly miss the point as well. Trust me when I say whatever you are thinking about us, our motives, our intellect, our presuppositions, we think about yours. I simply cannot understand how you cannot see the contradiction in terms you are creating. Love and good aren’t defined by God, they are defined by Websters. If God’s actions and nature is not congruent to these words then a new word must be used to describe Him.
“God has created the circumstances that indirectly influence the person, but does not directly do so. The person’s problem, then, is that when God creates a circumstance where a person will be tempted to do Wicked Action A instead of Good Action B, the wicked person will always choose Wicked Action A”
Again you completely miss the point. First off there is little difference between active and passive predestination. Secondly the only reason that person really wants to do Wicked Action A is because he has a fallen nature as the result of event God ordained and orchestrated. It doesn’t solve your problem, just moves it up a step. It’s like someone in a debate over the cosmological argument for God who suggested aliens as the creators of the universe rather than God. Great now the question is who created the aliens. God is still the ultimate cause.
In response to what you said in number 3 and the last part of number 1. It seems to me you are creating a “needy” God who has to display all aspects of His nature equally. Similar to R.C. Sproul Jr. when he indicated that God needs objects of wrath in order to exalt His eternal attribute of wrath. It would also seem to me that God’s desire to glorify His wrath is much stronger than His desire to glorify His love just given the percentages. CMP did an article on this awhile ago. Just search for R.C. Sproul and “evil creating”.
Susan,
You mentioned that a problem with Arminianism is that people fear they may become “unadopted”.
A similar problem is true with Calvinism–people can have a very real fear that they are not part of the elect and there is nothing they can do about it.
Hodge,
Basically what it seems your saying is that God needs to be glorified. First off why?? Why does God need glory?? Isn’t there a few theological concepts which this violates? Secondly your saying that in order to be glorified God needs to put on full display all His attributes. Again why?? Does one have to put on display all of their attributes all the time in order to fully be who they are? I hope not, because I have a lot of evil things inside of me. Not putting these on display hopefully doesn’t mean I’m not being true to myself or that I’m living a lie.
I see no logical reason why what you are saying here must be true. Furthermore He already did in fact display His wrath against sin to us on the cross when He took it out on Jesus Christ. So your assertions don’t answer the question why all aren’t saved. At least CMP is intellectually honest in admitting this is a tough question for Calvinists to get around rather than just giving tired ole pat answers right out of the playbook that no Arminian has found convincing for 100’s of years. We are a rebellious bunch aren’t we…..
Michael,
“At least CMP is intellectually honest in admitting this is a tough question for Calvinists to get around rather than just giving tired ole pat answers right out of the playbook that no Arminian has found convincing for 100’s of years.”
Sure, I agree that it’s good to say “this is a tough question”.
On the other hand, I don’t think the answer that Arminians give to universalists is any more convincing to a universalist than us Calvinists’ answer is to you. Everything that you’re saying about redefining words, they will say to you. Their intuition about the word “love” is as strong as yours, when they reject the idea of hell.
We shouldn’t toss out your argument. If we see an apparent inconsistency, that should make us double-check whether it’s really what the Bible is teaching. But we should also be humble enough to say, “I don’t see how this works together, but I trust You enough to be confident that it does—I’ll find out some day.”
Another place that Calvinists and Arminians in the same boat (as far as needing to explain or accept hard-to-understand things) is reflected something you said:
“First off there is little difference between active and passive predestination.”
With everything that happens—every act of evil, every natural disaster, every event of suffering—God has the ability to stop it. It can’t happen with at least his assent. (And that’s true even for open theists!) I can sympathize with what you just said about active & passive predestination. But I equally sympathize with someone struggling with the problem of suffering, and the question “Why did God allow this?”, and their thought that allowing something isn’t any better than “passive predestination”.
Michael,
We’re at an impasse, as I think God defines good and love in the context of Scripture and you think Websters does. I agree that Websters may pick up on cultural definitions, but they need to be corrected by Biblical ones. Otherwise, the term “man” is meaningless as well to describe the Bible’s concept of man, and we should therefore call man something else. That would go for all language that conflicts with the Bible. So according to you, we should have a separate language for Christianity or concede to cultural definitions that redefine the Biblical intent of those words. I don’t agree with either one of these options.
“First off there is little difference between active and passive predestination.”
Actually, there’s all the difference in the world. One incorporates the choice of a human from his own nature and one changes his nature so that his decision will be different.
I frankly don’t see how you escape this. You do believe that God put the forbidden tree in the garden, knowing that Adam and Eve would choose to eat of it, don’t you? So, whether you think it is for the purpose of free choice is irrelevant. The question is whether God made the environment that would cause them to sin. Your view does NOT escape this.
Michael,
I don’t agree with Sproul that God’s attribute is wrath. I said His attribute is good, and that is displayed both in His justice, holiness, and power as well as His mercy, love, and grace. God doesn’t need to create the world, so He doesn’t have a need to do this. But in order to create the perfect world that will both exalt Him as God, thus placing the world in the right order, and save His people, who must know the true God in order to have eternal life, He must display all of His attributes to both wicked and righteous. Both are needed for the perfect world, so both are in the world He created, since He only created the best possible world.
Hodge,
“3. So I’ve already answered objection 3. If God were to save everyone, then He would distort who He is. Hence, He would convey a false god to His people; and if their knowing the true God is eternal life, then ironically, in a world that God would save everyone, He would save no one.”
I don’t at all understand your last sentence–the part that says, ” in a world that God would save everyone, He would save no one.” Could you explain that to me please? I’m just not following you at all.
Michael T,
You said, ” It would also seem to me that God’s desire to glorify His wrath is much stronger than His desire to glorify His love just given the percentages” That is also something that I have thought about. It says several times in the Word that “God IS love”, hence the emphasis that has been placed on love down through the years. While the Bible certainly makes it clear that God has wrath against sin, I don’t believe He has ever revealed Himself as “God IS wrath”.
Finally, I would argue that God needs to be glorified in order to communicate His true nature to His people, and set the universe in order. If He is not above creation, creation is chaos, and thus He has neither created nor saved the humans He intended to create and save. God’s glorification is tied to His true nature as God and the communication of the one true God through which people are saved.
To not communicate who He is fully is to not communicate who He is, period. If I say that God is love and do not believe in a God of justice, I have the wrong God, and thus, the true God is not exalted and I am not saved. If I say that God is justice and not love, the true God is not exalted and I have the wrong God, I am not saved. Heresy is in the emphasis of one attribute of God to the exclusion of another. God is not a heretic.
Cheryl,
I mean that if one is saved by knowing God, and God does not reveal who He is through both love, mercy and grace AND holiness, justice, wrath toward evil, then He is not revealing Himself to His people. If they don’t really know the true God, then they are not really saved. Hence, if God saves everyone, showing only His love and not His justice, power, holiness, etc. then He is in essence saving no one.
The phrase “God is love” is in reference to believers. That’s the context. I don’t mean to suggest that He is only love to believers, but that His nature as love is emphasized to believers, because that is what He communicates to them. I doubt “God is love” is emphasized in contexts where He is killing the wicked and sending them to hell. So I think that you are emphasizing what is emphasized to Christians in their relationship with God and each other to the point of universalism.
So Hodge, it seems to me that you are back to saying with Piper that God did decree good and evil both in that they both have to exist. And that He did decree that people would sin so that He could punish them. Am I correct in my understanding of your comments here?
Even if you say that He only created people that He knew would sin if given the right set of circumstances, are you still not saying that it was His ultimate purpose that people sin so that He could display His wrath–if indeed He does have to display it in order for people to know Him correctly?
So, does that then not leave us in the very difficult or downright impossible position of saying that ultimately God is the author or cause of all sin, if indeed He has to have sin in the world so that He can display His wrath? I can’t see it any other way.
—
A similar problem is true with Calvinism–people can have a very real fear that they are not part of the elect and there is nothing they can do about it.
—
I must disagree with this. The Bible teaches perseverance of the saints. If one has ongoing faith and trust in Jesus Christ our saviour, we can be assured we are the elect. In fact, Peter commands us to make sure we are elect – that is, to make sure we have the assurance of salvation
“make your calling and election sure…[by doing these things]” (2 Peter 1:10) If you read the prior 5 verses, you will discover that faith is one of those things.
I must also take issue with the statement “and there is nothing they can do it about”. Again, this is wrong. There is something we can do if we fear we are not saved – we can repent and believe. The question is, are we willing to do that? If not, then the fault is ours. If yes, then God must get the credit, in order to be able to consistently say “Soli Deo Gloria” and “Sola Gratia”
Cherylu, I don’t think anyone really escapes the dilemma of “why is sin and evil in the universe?”
Either God purposes that they be here, or he doesn’t.
If he doesn’t, then sin and evil are of a higher power than God and we have much to be afraid of, for sin and and evil are running rampant and God is helpless!
If he does, then Christians can take comfort in God’s sovereignty and promises that “all things work together for our good”
See, Calvinists say God purposes it to be here, ultimately by His own sovereign, wise, decretive will.
But really, the Arminian escapes no dilemma. Why? Because before creating, surely God could have contemplated any number of possible universes to create. But He chose to create this one – the one with sin and evil.
At the end of the day, we all must face the fact that sin and evil are here because God decreed that they would be. To simply say “God only passively permits sin and evil” doesn’t solve the problem. Because when God permits something, he always permits it willingly, not unwillingly. To willingly permit something is to will, or decree, that it be so.
Further, as is clear from the Bible, God has the power to prevent sin from happening. If so, why didn’t God prevent the first sin, or every sin after? The only honest answer I can think of is He because desires – at some level/sense – for it to be here. It is serving a purpose. He is receiving glory by it, somehow. In ways we can’t understand.
I have no problem saying that God created a universe with sin and evil and put sin and evil to work for His own purposes. Why would any Christian have a problem saying so?
Hodge,
I don’t think I necessarily agree with your statement that people have to see every attribute of God displayed in order to know Him truly so that they can be saved.
One attribute comes to mind immediately–His glory. Only a very few humans on this earth have ever seen His glory. A few come to mind: the disciples that were with Him when He was transfigured saw it at least to some degree, and John when He had the vision on Patmos. But generally speaking, His glory is something that is hidden to most men. It is not something that there is a general revelation made of at all.
Also the fact that He is eternal is not something that we can readily see. The Bible teaches it and we believe it. Just like the Bible teaches about His glory and we beleive it.
Why couldn’t it likewise be the way we know about His wrath?
Cheryl,
I didn’t say we have to see His attributes (although it depends upon how you are defining glory in order to consider it an attribute). In any case, one does not see eternity, etc. One, however, can understand through communication. We understand that God is through what God says, not by seeing Him. You just told me that He is glorious and eternal without seeing Him. My point is that God displays His eternity through various acts. He displays His glory through various acts. He displays His justice through various acts. He displays His love through various acts. We don’t need to see God in order to see these things displayed. We don’t need to experience eternity in order to see it displayed. In fact, we will never see the full attribute, but the attributes fully displayed is important because it tells us that our relationship is with the right God, and that the true God is A, B, and C in a world of false gods that are A and C only, or A and B only, etc. Hence, it saves us and glorifies the one true God rather than some false one.
“We’re at an impasse, as I think God defines good and love in the context of Scripture and you think Websters does.”
Which basically concedes my point. According to you God can take a word and make it to mean essentially anything he wants too. Hypothetically speaking God could be a complete sadist and still be good simply because he describes himself in such a manner. I submit that this is absurd. Think about it this way. When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush did He invent the language, or did He use a preexisting human construct with preexisting meanings to reveal Himself?? I submit that when God speaks through language He is using a preexisting human construct to reveal Himself and is therefore to a extent bound to the preexisting meanings of that construct. If God we’re to speak to 21st Century American’s today directly He would be largely bound to the meanings of words contained in Webster’s dictionary. I don’t see how it could be any other way if language is in any way going to be a meaningful way for God to reveal Himself.
Joseff,
I said, “A similar problem is true with Calvinism–people can have a very real fear that they are not part of the elect and there is nothing they can do about it.”
You disagree with this. I have read statements of people that have struggled long and hard with this very thing.
And on another thread, I think it was on this site, it was brought up that there is also another Calvinist belief, (held by at least some, I don’t remember exactly), that teaches that God can give a person a temporary grace that makes them and the ones around them believe that they are among the elect. It was said to be so close to the real and permanent thing that it was very difficult to tell them apart. But that this grace was at some point removed by God and the person would find out they were not among the elect after all. How do you all deal with that kind of thing? Just sit around and wait till your death bed to see if you have persevered or if you have only been tricked into thinking you are one of the elect and then the rug swept out from under your feet?
“I submit that when God speaks through language He is using a preexisting human construct to reveal Himself and is therefore to a extent bound to the preexisting meanings of that construct.”
Of course it is, but it isn’t in English and words are defined by context. They don’t define large concepts by themselves. I feel like I’m talking to Sue again. See that discussion and apply it to this one.
“If God we’re to speak to 21st Century American’s today directly He would be largely bound to the meanings of words contained in Webster’s dictionary.”
Really? So if God were to communicate using the Websters definition for “man,” then He would not be able to define it differently than Websters by adding context to it? We really are at an impasse.
Hodge and Joseff,
With the regards to God placing the tree in the garden etc. you are referring more or less to the problem of evil. Many philosopher’s much smarter then myself believe the free will defense adequately answers this question. We aren’t addressing the problem of evil so much as what defines “free will” and whether or not Adam had a true choice in whether or not to eat the apple. Arminian’s contend that because (as Joseff states) God actively decreed the fall there can not be any true “free will”. Thus the blame for the string of bloodshed and disaster which has been human history falls on God, not us. We were just robots doing what we have been programmed to do.
I appreciate, once again, being able to partake in a good discussion, but I do need to get some work done, as I do know that this conversation could last awhile. Thanks to all for the congenial conversation.
Just to clarify before I go, Michael. I said before, it does not matter the reason (i.e., because God wanted humans to be free) God set up the environment that He knew would be a temptation for humans. It only matters that He did. Hence, we’re in the same boat.
“Really? So if God were to communicate using the Websters definition for “man,” then He would not be able to define it differently than Websters by adding context to it? We really are at an impasse.”
Man
an adult person who is male
the generic use of the word to refer to any human
I fail to see the issue. The nature of man on the other hand is a philosophical construct which would use many other words, also contained in Webster’s, to flush out. Words such as “fallen” or “evil” may be appropriate which also have their own meanings. The point is that God couldn’t use the word “good” to describe humanities current state because the meaning of the word “good” cannot possibly describe a people who regularly lie, steal, cheat, kill, and use one another for profit. Hypothetically God could not come down to day and state that Hitler was “good” without rendering language absurd.
Michael,
I think Hodge made an excellent distinction that you overlooked, and I’d like to point it out by paraphrasing your last comment.
“According to you a culture can take a word and make it to mean essentially anything they want it to.”
I find it strange that you would respond to Hodge’s comment the way you did. You quoted one sentence of his, but the very next sentence had the important distinction. And I can’t imagine why you would reply without addressing it.
Hodge said:
If our culture has a definition of “love” that excludes all possibility of hell, then according to your standard, God cannot use the word “love”. You’re saying that God isn’t allowed to correct our definitions when he communicates with us.
Do you really disagree that Biblical definitions may sometimes need to correct our cultural definitions, reflected in Websters? Do you really think it’s appropriate for you to describe that idea as, “God can take a word and make it to mean essentially anything he wants too”?
—
It was said to be so close to the real and permanent thing that it was very difficult to tell them apart. But that this grace was at some point removed by God and the person would find out they were not among the elect after all. How do you all deal with that kind of thing?
—
Cherylu, isn’t this nothing less than the parable of the sower? I’m not sure why this is a problem for the doctrine of election. If one finds fault with this concept, their contention is with the parable of the sower.
Joseff,
No, I don’t think this was like the parable of the sower as I remember reading it. In the parable of the sower, it says the problem was with the type of soil that there was in each individual case. In the instance I was talking about it said God deliberately gave grace–although not a true grace-that looked like the real thing and then that God deliberately removed that grace again. That doesn’t seem like the same thing to me. I can’t find anything about it now, was hoping to check to see that I remembered it correctly.
“In the instance I was talking about it said God deliberately gave grace–although not a true grace-that looked like the real thing and then that God deliberately removed that grace again”
If it’s a grace that isn’t a “true grace”, how can it be grace?
Here’s what I think – the Bible states that God can (and does) “Send strong delusion so that people believe a lie”
The reprobate, those that are not truly born again and at heart are God haters, sometimes they think they are saved. They are outwardly religious. Then they fall away when trials come. Can’t this be a sort of “hardening” work that God does? The Bible plainly says that He hardens whomever He desires.
“According to you a culture can take a word and make it to mean essentially anything they want it to.”
You got it. Think about it. The word “good” did not even exist when Bible was written as the English language didn’t exist. We have translated a Greek word to mean “good”. Now what the words used in the Bible mean in the culture in question is for people far more educated in that matter than myself to debate, though many of them seem to agree that there is a disconnect between the word in ordinary usage and the word as used by Calvinists in relation to God. However, the word “good” as understood in modern English is not related to how Calvinists view the word “good” as it related to God and therefore God should not be referred to as “good” in the Calvinist understanding (and though I dispute Hodges conclusions if he were correct the Arminian understanding too).
If our culture has a definition of “love” that excludes all possibility of hell, then according to your standard, God cannot use the word “love”. You’re saying that God isn’t allowed to correct our definitions when he communicates with us.
If that was true I would agree that “loving” would not be the proper way to describe God in the same way that the Greek word “eros” would probably not be appropriate in describing the way God loves individual Christians (my understanding from others is that this word is “love”, but has a sexual connotation to it). Some other word would have to be used to describe Him. Now I dispute that this is the case. First off we have to understand the essence of hell. While fiery lakes and burning sulfur are the imagery used in the Bible to describe hell this is almost certainly not literal (even the words used for hell are figurative in nature – Hades, which is a Greek conception of the afterlife, and Gehenna which is a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem). The essence of hell is eternal separation from God according to ones own choice to be separated from God. I think C.S. Lewis had a lot of great things to say about this subject part of which is quoted above. In a very real sense hell is God giving people not only what they deserve, but what they want. Now I know of very few people who would say that it is a loving act for someone to force someone to be with them who does not wish to be with them. This is in fact a crime, false imprisonment. In the same way God forcing those who reject Him to be with Him for eternity would not be a loving act.
“The essence of hell is eternal separation from God according to ones own choice to be separated from God”
I don’t understand hell as SEPARATION from God. God is not absent from hell. God is very much in hell dealing out justice.
That’s what makes hell so scary – not that God is absent – but that God is there!
“I don’t understand hell as SEPARATION from God”
While then we have another issues here, but it goes beyond the scope of this thread. Suffice to say that many theologians past and present have thought of hell as separation from God. For instance William Lane Craig recently explained it as such in response to a question during a debate on theism.