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”"
However we may understand the reality of hell, it certainly sounds to me like separation from God: “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;” Mt 25:11
Michael,
In an earlier comment I said that “the common view (or definition) 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… But when it comes to predestining some to hell or some to heaven, the objection has been raised that this is not good, that the word good is being redefined.”
I was proposing that the definition of good is not completely revamped by those who hold a Calvinistic viewpoint, though perhaps it is being stretched or expanded. Maybe one is not able to readily see the good in God predestining the eternal destiny of people, or in His not saving all people, or in His allowing sickness and suffering and death, or in His permitting the Fall and evil to enter into human experience. But what I am arguing is that all of these are performed by a God who the testimony of Scripture and experience demonstrates is good. So perhaps then we need to have our definition of good, not made incomprehensible as you suggest Calvinism does, but expanded, so that good includes things we wouldn’t have readily seen as good from our own limited viewpoint.
As an aside, I notice that in comments people sometimes say, “well, you guys are a lot smarter than I am, so I could be wrong,” or “people much smarter than I have come to this conclusion, therefore…” I contend that being smart in an intellectual sense is not the key to biblical wisdom. Doesn’t God seek obedience and humility and teachability? Not that we shouldn’t exercise our minds– on the contrary– we are to develop them to the best of our ability and give our best thinking to Scripture and to our doctrine. But I think we should be careful not to equate intellectual gifts with true and accurate apprehension of spiritual truth. Brilliant men are sometimes more deeply deceived than simpletons. The pathway to wisdom is the fear of God and a reverence for His word.
If God doesn’t desire the death of sinners, but predestines them to Hell according to the Calvinist understanding – is he lying, stupid, or evil?
During the Reformation, the Calvinist doctrines were addressed by the Eastern Churches to make sure all parties involved knew the Calvinist doctrines were being heartily and wholly refuted. Of all the doctrines addressed, only one (to my knowledge) is explicitly referred to as anathema: double-predestination. And it was declared so on the grounds that any common sense analysis shows it to make God the author of sin, death, and suffering.
Calvinists cannot have it both ways. God cannot choose from eternity that specific persons will suffer forever AND not be the cause of sin, death, and suffering.
[…] A Calvinist's Understanding of "Free-Will" 352 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton […]
Alex,
1. I simply don’t see how the Calvinist description of predestination can be ascribed to a God who is good period. Maybe it’s a personal fault on my part or something, but I just can’t do it. No way no how. It’s not that saying this view of God as good is an expansion of the word “good”. I would be ok with this and in fact believe that the Arminian view of God requires an expansion of the word “good” in order to properly use the term. The problem is that the God of Calvinism completely obliterates the ordinary meaning of the word good and often means it’s opposite. To me this is really as absurd as saying Hitler was good. It’s incomprehensible. Now you can appeal to “mystery” the otherness of God to explain how a good God can predestine and ordain people to hell, but to me this seems like a cop out. It doesn’t answer the very real and legitimate questions people are asking other than to say “there’s nothing to see here – move along”.
2. As to referring to people “much smarter then myself” I am simply referring to those who are much more educated then me and recognizing the limits of my knowledge in this area. I am a lawyer and an armchair theologian, not a professional one. As the author of this blog will openly admit their are many educated, god fearing, Bible believing theologians out there who would disagree with his position and it is those to whom I am referring. In addition I don’t think he (CMP) would say that they don’t have good reasons for disagreeing with his position. Paul Copan for instance who posts on this blog quite regularly is, I believe, an Arminian.
Cheryl, Ps. 139:7-8 “Where can I go to escape your spirit? Where can I flee to escape your presence? If I were to ascend to heaven, you would be there. If I were to sprawl out in Sheol, there you would be.”
I’ve heard Dr. Sproul use this passage to say that God is everywhere, even in hell.
Michael, Do you consider a ‘good’ parent to be one who never punishes his child?
As an Armenian you feel that God can only be good, and believable, if he only sends a person to hell because they willfully reject Christ? But even so, if such a person really KNEW what they were in for do you think that they would choose hell rather than Jesus?
So, what is loving then…in order to make it fair? In order to call God good by your terms I would think that God would have to give everyone a real-live sneak preview of Hell, otherwise they are choosing it in ignorance, right?…which I don’t think would be good by your definition, would it?…just to explore the Arminian perspective on Hell a bit…
Susan,
I don’t think Psalm 139 can be used to prove the existence of God in hell. Couple points. 1) Psalm, not Epistle. The Psalms are full of hyperbole and figures of speech that are not literally true. David here is simply using hyperbole to show that there is no place where we can run from God. Think about what he is saying literally. Can you run to hell?? Of course not and thus I would favor a figurative interpretation of this verse. 2) One must also be aware that the Israelites conception of the afterlife at the time of David was quite different then the conception among Christians or even the Pharisees at the time of Jesus for that matter. Sheol and hell certainly have some resemblance, but ultimately Sheol has more in common with the Catholic concept of Purgatory then Hell.
You asked,
“Michael, Do you consider a ‘good’ parent to be one who never punishes his child?”
You do realize this is one of the primary arguments for annihilationism right? A good parent most certainly punishes their children. Yet a “good” parent has a purpose in their punishment in that they are seeking to instill wisdom in their children such that they will not do wrong in the future. What God is doing here is akin to shooting a child as punishment for something the child had no control over. It is permanent and irrevocable. No one would call such a parent “good”.
Now given that I do not believe in annihilationism I of course have some issues that need to be answered too. And I think Lewis concept of Hell being locked from the inside explains a lot. To answer the question you asked, “But even so, if such a person really KNEW what they were in for do you think that they would choose hell rather than Jesus?” The answer from my perspective is that even if they knew what they were in they would still choose hell. By this I don’t mean that they want to go to hell, rather that the are unwillingly to do what is necessary to not go there (humble…
got cut off. Should have read (humble themselves and repent) at the end. There is a great C.S. Lewis quote about this after the part about hell being locked from the inside that I can’t seem to find at the moment.
Hehe, even though it’s an offtopic, there is much in Edwards sermon “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” that inclines me to believe that hell is not separation from God in the sense that God is completely absent.
Separation from God’s love, mercy, and grace, and riches, maybe, but not God himself (completely) His wrath is very much present in hell.
Joseff,
I have a question for you. I am trying to understand what you are conveying with your use of “hehe” in this thread. I have seen it several times now. Since much is conveyed about a person’s thoughts and where they are coming from by their tone and by such comments, can you please let me know what you mean by this?
Michael, Ps. 139 is a praise of David’s highlighting two attributes of God: His omniscience and His omnipresence. Certainly this is a poetic psalm, and David is delighting in understanding that God is absolutely everywhere….that there is in fact no place where God is not! ….even the most extreme of places where one might tend to think that God might not be. Do you think that David got it wrong about God being even in hell? Why would you say that? Is it because it fits better with your concept of hell being separation from God rather than a literal place of torment? David’s expressed desire was far from contemplations about running from God, he was rejoicing in the fact that God is everywhere.
Just to clarify, I believe hell to be a place of torment too–not just a separation from God as the verse I quoted earlier seems to indicate.
Michael T: The quote you are looking for is in The Problem of Pain, I believe.
Ron,
Yeah I know what book it is in, just can’t find it.
Susan,
Has nothing to do with believing David got it wrong as I don’t believe he is intending to say what you imply. He is being hyperbolic and figurative. Furthermore, please read my earlier statement. If you had asked David about “Hell” he would have no idea what you were talking about. The concept simply didn’t exist at David’s time. So to say David is saying God is in hell is absurd.
Also a thought if David is delighting in the fact that God is everywhere, think of the horribleness of somewhere God is not. Seems like hell to me at least. Think of how bad the world is now, and then try to even imagine the orders of magnitude worse it would be if God just abandoned it.
[…] I think one of my favorite articles at Patton’s site was his on a Calvinist understanding of free will. […]
[…] Parchment and Pen » A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will” […]
Michael, great blog. Engaging buoyant style. Interlaced optimism and criticism. Fair nods to your critics. Nice touch.
You wrote – “I don’t believe that too much information can destroy the Christian faith …. Christianity does not need to fear the rise of information, but to learn with it, integrate it, and to teach people how to process their faith (and on).”
I agree. At least with this verbal formulae. Your nod to cognitive dissonance plays to factual/empirical questions about how and whether believers really do (or do not) integrate new information into existing convictions.
My comment here (next) is not adversarial. Nor argumentative. It’s descriptive.
Empirical/clinical studies of active, practicing, confessing Calvinists (just one e.g.; could apply to Arminians too) reveal no correlation (no effect) between theological conviction/confession and real-life attribution to God’s action. Theological convictions (i.e., for Calvinists, God’s sovereignty) which should commit Calvinists to assert God’s direct control in real life attributions are simply not upheld. A slew of studies upholds the trajectory of such findings (for one e.g., see Miner, M. H. and McKnight, J. (1999). Religious Attributions: Situational Factors and Effects on Coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(2), 274-287).
I’d suggest the reasons for this failure of the “integration”of life into theology are as numerous as the purposes of Ecclesiastes 3 multiplied to their own power. On orders of magnitude. There is no single reason.
But again, cognitive dissonance is a factual matter. Not a theoretical nor theological one.
The father in your hypothetical above may not be making any strategic move at all. Nor even responding. Merely exhibiting the already-existing internal state of the non-sequitur between theology and real life.
Cheers,
Jim
Ack!
Mis-posted: #66 should have been under: “Warning: Too Much Information May Destroy Your Faith.”
Forthwith.
If we’re comparing apples to apples (scripture to scripture) we come to a disturbing scenario. 2 Peter 3:9 says that “it is not God’s will that any man should perish.” He has the power to make this will possible. Yet we also know from Romans/Paul that He has in fact hardened people in the past for what reasons seemed good to Him as “vessels of wrath” (if we’re following Paul’s argument correctly and as inerrant–which I have reason to doubt). So then, we have God who has all-power to perform what is explicitly stated as his will (save all men) choosing against his own will (destroying Pharaoh, hating Esau). Fine. But Calvinism would go on to say that ALL the lost are basically the “unelected” (to put it bluntly NOT chosen for salvation). But this would put God in the position of CONSTANTLY choosing against his express will. That seems very suspect to me; nevertheless, far be it from me to understand the mind of God. However, isn’t it more coherent that there is an alternative explanation and that is simply that if 2 Peter 3:9 is God’s will and yet many still perish…there exists the possibility that man’s will can thwart God’s EVEN AS God intervenes to harden some (but not EVERY single person that perishes)? It’s the only reasonable view. Why must God either elect or harden? He is certainly free to do both (as he told Moses and as Paul illustrates) but it doesn’t necessarily follow that this kind of direct intervention is ALWAYS what happens (vs. indirectly where will can act, e.g.) …otherwise you have God inflicting pain to his own self by always causing the thing he MOSTS wants to avoid–man perishing. And though the divine mind may have his very good reasons to directly harden a few (which is still perplexing but obviously within his right and power) it doesn’t match his character and express wishes (again, 2 Pet 3:9) for him to do this ad nauseum, even for all time, for all persons who choose against him (perish), in my view.
[…] Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibalists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.) […]
[…] 5. Calvinism is not a denial of freedom. Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibilists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.) […]
Is it possible to have a biblically sound position that maintains savation is predestined, while free will functions simultaneously in all other aspects of life? This is the position I currently hold, but I get so lost in the implications that I’m not sure it’s even biblical, or possible. Anyone can chime in cause I’m lost.
Matthew,
You have it right.
There’s free will in the things below, but not the things Above.
God calls and chooses us. This is ALL OVER the Bible.
[…] completely pigeon hole Libertarian Free Will so that they can tackle it. They say things like “Libertarians believe that Free Will is the power of contrary choice” then easily dismantle that position by showing that sometimes we can’t make another […]
I believe that although God places a person where he wants him, when he wants him, it would seem that He also places in mankind an inherent concsience likely due to the presence of His Holy Spirit in the earth. We are all subject to a sense of right and wrong. I believe that those who are truly evil, make deliberate choices for evil against that conscience. Knowing full well that the choice they make is wrong and it is evil. I think that is where the will of mankind lives. In the ability to choose deliberately and knowingly between good and evil. In this case, it is not deception or a bad choice or a mistake that is repented of. It is the deliberate choice of evil over good against a man’s conscience. No matter what the circumstance that put a man in the position to make that choice, the choice is still a choice and a knowing one.
[…] […]
[…] A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will” | Parchment and PenMar 1, 2010 … There are many words and concepts in theology that suffer from misunderstanding, mis-characterization, and misinformation. “Predestination … […]
[…] Patton tries to explain how a Calvinist understands LFW. Writing against LFW, Patton explains that there are numerous factors in your life that factor into […]
[…] simply embrace this tension between determinism and free will with hands over their mouths, and yet Mr. Patton holds to compatibilism which plainly “redefines” freedom so that it is no longer freedom in any real sense at all, […]
[…] there is no mystery. If “human freedom” is to be understood in a compatibilist sense (which Mr. Patton holds to), then there is still no mystery. The mystery is removed by redefining “human freedom”. The […]
[…] A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will” | Parchment and Pen __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. – "If damnation be justice, then mercy may choose its own object." – Jonathan Edwards […]
[…] God himself. So you say that you, a Calvinist, believe in free will. Are you taking the line of Michael Patton, as a Calvinist? Do you […]
[…] Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in free will. They just define it differently. Here you go: A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will” | Parchment and Pen __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. […]
[…] mismo tiempo sosteniendo un alto concepto de la soberanía providencial de Dios. (Más sobre esto aquí […]
[…] mismo tiempo sosteniendo un alto concepto de la soberanía providencial de Dios. (Más sobre esto aquí […]
[…] Calvinists do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibilists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time that they hold a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.) […]
[…] mismo tiempo sosteniendo un alto concepto de la soberanía providencial de Dios. (Más sobre esto aquí […]
Michael Patton
You ask, Does a person have the ability to choose against their nature?
Matthew 7:11 (NKJV)
11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
Here Jesus reveals two simultaneous truth, 1) people are in essence evil (sinners). 2) They are capable of doing good.
Does the Calvinist view teach that fallen human beings (sinners) can only choose to sin?
Isn’t it true that sinners still retain the attributes they were created with?
Isn’t these attributes expressed and acted on by humans after the fall?
As sinners, can’t we choose to do the moral thing, the right thing, to do good and not evil in a given situation?
Aren’t you acknowledging that we are able to suppress sin even before conversion in this statement, “Every aspect of our being is infected with sin, even if we don’t act it out to a maximal degree.”
I assume from this statement that you believe that fallen humans can suppress sinful tendencies, being they don’t act it out to a maximal degree. Which means they don’t always act on sinful tendencies.
My own view has two important predicates as far as human essence, 1) We were created in the image of God, thus we have attributes that give us moral ability. 2) We inherit sin from our greatest ancestor (Adam), which in itself is subversive, acting within us to make contrary choices to Gods will. These two truths should cause us to conclude that although sin does subvert, it didn’t eradicate God given abilities.
You write, “If you ask whether a person can choose against their nature (i.e. libertarian freedom) the answer, I believe, must be “no.”
Your answer seems to be based in the belief that a sinner will always act sinful. This I believe to be a weakness on the Calvinist view. Humans are able to make contrary choices other than that which sin inspires.
We who are evil are capable of good, therefore…
Freewill is the sin nature
[…] mieux étudier cette cinquième rubrique, je vais devoir faire référence au billet additionnel que mentionne l’auteur. Il propose cinq questions par lesquels il tente de trouver […]
I believe in libertarian free will. Unless one is always free to choose either good or evil, no matter what state one is in, either before the fall or after the fall, one can not be held accountable for one’s choice of either good or evil. If one is necessitated to choose evil, then one can not be held accountable for choosing evil. This was the uniformly held view of Christians before Augustine.
I will give this to Calvinists, they at least go a lot further than most other Christians in attempting to make logical sense of the contradictory assumption of free-willed creatures existing in a universe made by an omniscient deity. However, the mental contortions they go through only to wind up with even more absurd contradictions such as, “Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty or freedom of contrary choice,” illustrates clearly the inevitable result of applying logic to an idea or belief that’s not founded in it to start with. And they have the nerve to criticize solipsists for being crazy for proposing “brain in jar” thought experiments? Apparently they can’t hear themselves talk.
Luther was right when he wrote , “I believe that I cannot believe in my Lord Jesus Christ, or come to Him.”
“But that He has chosen me, through the gospel…”
You assume that when Adam sinned his nature fell into depravity, then you argue man just makes the choices based upon his nature.
Adam had a nature to sin before Satan approached him and Eve. Adam did not fall into depravity. He could choose Good and bad from the beginning. His nature never changed. What changed was Satan’s voice being interjected into his thinking.
So Calvinism uses a different principle for Adam Pre and post sin. Very bad logic. Very short-sighted. In one you say Adam sinned against his nature and then post sin you say Adam’s race sinned because of their nature.
Please visit my website.
https://sites.google.com/site/faithonlyreviewed/home
Calvinism is simply twisted logic.
I have one question…how did Adam & Eve come to decide to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge? You stated that we don’t become sinners when we sin but we sin because we are sinners, which in my mind is nothing more than the chicken vs egg which came first argument. You can put that argument to anybody that followed Adam, but you cannot say that about Adam & Eve. They BECAME sinners because they SINNED. How would they have come to that decision without a sin nature? Free will, plain & simple. And we are no different. If Adam & Eve chose to sin when it wasn’t within their nature to do so then we can equally make a decision to choose God even when it’s not within our nature.
Our wills are bound to sin.
We choose to sin. But we do not choose God not the things of God…without Him choosing us first.
I would like to know your rebuttal to the idea of free will. It seems to me that a man or woman’s free will is a non-issue to the Calvinist’s doctrine. In other words, to the Calvinist, a person is predestined to either salvation or eternal damnation. This seems fatalistic in nature.
To be sure, God is sovereign. Indeed, He is. However, did He not allow mankind the ability to choose?
How does a Calvinist reconcile the notion of “free will” against the backdrop of predestination to either salvation or damnation? The answer would not be in regard to man’s nature.
“Free will” is the ability to choose even contrary to one’s nature. E.g. Adam and Even had sinless natures from the very beginning. They didn’t even know what a sacrifice was and therefore, had never seen the blood of lambs. This was because the need for a sacrifice as atonement for sin did not exist until they fell to sin.
In spite of their originally sinless nature, they fell to sin by choosing contrary to their nature. It was not in their nature to sin from the beginning of their life on earth. Yet, contrary to their pure sinless nature, they sinned.
The potential to sin existed regardless of their sinless nature.
Therefore, I ask you…how do you as a Calvinist regard free will?
God is sovereign yet, He opted to risk His very life in creating mankind replete with the free will to deny His Lordship.
God bless,
-Dan
God bless,
-Dan
How do you explain Ephesians 5:7 and other verses that give COMMANDs if Monergism is correct? Would’nt that make commands redundant or useless?
The issue with Calvinism, it seems to me, is not whether or not there is something called libertarian free will. Of course we are an admixture of influences and these make up ‘who we are’. Of course our choices are dictated thereby. In the matter of our salvation, we also have the influence of the Holy Spirit drawing us to Jesus.
The issue is whether or not this ‘drawing’ influence is resistible or whether such grace is irresistible. In Calvin’s system (and Augustine of Hippo before him) the elect are irresistibly drawn to Christ. I believe this to be part of the entrapment of Christian doctrine by Greek Neoplatonism. This is a priori reasoning: if God is God, he cannot be thwarted – therefore his will will always be successful. This is NOT the God of the Bible, who frequently expresses wishes that do not occur. In Scripture, God changes his mind in response to new contingencies and does not always get what he wants.
In one sense this truth has been admitted by Calvinists in their recourse to the idea of the ‘revealed’ will of God against his ‘effective, secret, decretal’ will. This casuistry is unnecessary. Once we admit that God does not impose his will on others (for instance, you and I commit sins against God’s will), all such casuistry is simply moot.
In the matter of salvation, God is looking for our ‘yes’ of acceptance of his glorious offer of salvation through Jesus Christ, and our constant ‘yes’ of our continued reliance on, and relationship with him through Jesus and by his i dwelling Holy Spirit. Such ‘yes’es are our department and not forced on us by God’s supposed secret decree.
William of Ockham says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Try dumping the secret will of God and just rely on what God actually says and reveals about himself in Jesus of Nazareth.
I don’t understand why Calvinist determinists try to argue others into their position. If I believe that such determinism is wrong, then, according to a determinist, it must be that God is decreeing that I hold this position and there’s nothing anyone can do to change it, so why bother?
They worship theology and not God. It’s a system an identity to them