Dominion vs determinism 2

[Ben1445]

I think it would help if you look at it from the other perspective. What I said is that we have the ability (and Calvinism says we are only able to) reject the influence of God on our lives.

What Calvinism says regarding this is that this ability to do this that you are talking about is defective in itself.

From my perspective, I am not talking about overcoming the influence of sin. We are already in sin. We don’t need to be influenced to be there. We are there.
It must be understood that influence that must be overcome to prevent a change is the influence of God.

Thus the need for divine help even in the act of coming to Christ.

(Jesus is the Divine Help for us to come to God. No man comes to the Father but by the Son. There is not a “no man comes to the Father but by the Son by the Father.”)

Calvinism would say this "ability of choice" we have is not inclined naturally to Christ.

This is true. But if the Word of God is given, this is the influence of God. It must either be rejected or accepted. But the Bible is not invisible to those who have not been “given the ability to understand it.”(this is a construct of Calvinism. People understand language enough to understand what is being said and accept or reject.)

(They do not deny that we do have the ability to resist a given temptation or do a good deed or show virtue.) Non-Calvinists believe that this inner and final decisionmaker within our deepest self is able, given the information of the gospel propositions, to choose to come to Christ.

Given the gospel, a person has been introduced to Christ. What more do they need than Christ Who is our life?

In between are various degrees of belief as to the need of enlightenment or conviction and to what extent that can be self generated.

God made our minds. The extreme seems to be where the argument ends up so I address it. God made our minds. Any thinking we do has already been given us by God. To deny that God has created all men with the equal ability to respond to Him is to demean God’s creation and make some men no better than animals.

By the way, I'm not completely sure Calvinism is right on all this but I think the basic framework probably is.

Given that all men are created equal, the response is also able to be equal.
Man resists God. Man does not overcome sin. Man overcomes the influence of God because he loves darkness rather than light.
This doesn’t mean that all men will never respond. It means that all men are not seeking God. God is seeking all men.
Some, yes most, resist God and overcome His influence because they reject Him.

 

[JesusFan]

I disagree here. The attack on free-will by Calvinists is an attack that free-will exists.

That free-will exists (the ability to make un-caused, totally automonous decisions) may or may not be logical. I believe it is. BUT the important thing is that this type of free-will is biblical (Prov 16) so regardless of logic we have to accept it.

What many Calvinists turn to is libertarian free-will (a philosophical theory), but this is not an honest path as no supporter of free-will defines "free-will" as divorced from all influence (culture, worldview, personal ideologies, upbringing, etc).

Basically, what biblical free-will means is that the plans of man belong to that man (the response comes from God), and man plans his own steps (God establishes the outcome).

Those who believe this use passages like Prov 16:1 (To humans belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord comes the proper answer of the tongue) and Prov 16:9 (In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps) along with passages denying God as the cause of evil yet men choosing evil (and attributing this choice to be evil).

The logical point is that men simply have free-will (we make our choices free of coercion). In terms of Scripture this means men are actually guilty (not just of doing evil but of being wicked) rather than a victim of divine circumstance.

lost sinners with fallen natures are still free to make choices, but what they can actual choose to do would be limited to their desires and restricted by their fallen sin natures

 

[Silverhair]

Therefore, since we have the power to reflect back - we should do so.

Not that it's the only thing. Or even the best thing for your assurance. But it is a legitimate thing.

Yes we should reflect back on what and why we believe.

Was our confession of faith emotional or was it bases on clearly explained truths about Christ Jesus and salvation through Him.

If it was the former then have you taken the time to study the truths of Christianity.

That you prayed a prayer or that you do good deeds should not be the basis of your assurance.

So as I see it reflecting back is actually the best thing one can do.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Ben1445. What is said above is very close to what I personally think is the most balanced approach to this. I do think we have a true inability to come to Christ on our own, even when provided with all the right information, and the reason is that we don't tend to want to. Yet, even with God's grace and enlightenment many men still do refuse this and say no. This assessment is the same as Leroy Forlines' as found in "The Quest for Truth: Theology for Postmodern Times, which is an excellent book. I believe he is a Free Will Baptist.

Where it really gets confusing for me is that in my reading of John Owen, he says much the same thing, as does Jonathan Edwards - in their sermons and papers. Yet they are Calvinists. So again, what is going on! I am guessing but I think clergymen are defending the framework they were trained under and the camp they are in. The framework must be defended. In practice and so in their preaching and teaching directly to laymen like us they were far more loose in their methods. How else could a Calvinist like Edwards say in a sermon that "Christ has died, all things are made ready for you. The only thing now lacking is your consent". And I have a quote from John Owen where he said that "Christ can do nothing for you if you refuse to believe". I have trouble reconciling these with strict the strict determinism that some modern Calvinists, and even they themselves, teach elsewhere.

 

[Ben1445]

@Ben1445. What is said above is very close to what I personally think is the most balanced approach to this. I do think we have a true inability to come to Christ on our own, even when provided with all the right information, and the reason is that we don't tend to want to. Yet, even with God's grace and enlightenment many men still do refuse this and say no. This assessment is the same as Leroy Forlines' as found in "The Quest for Truth: Theology for Postmodern Times, which is an excellent book. I believe he is a Free Will Baptist.

Where it really gets confusing for me is that in my reading of John Owen, he says much the same thing, as does Jonathan Edwards - in their sermons and papers. Yet they are Calvinists. So again, what is going on! I am guessing but I think clergymen are defending the framework they were trained under and the camp they are in. The framework must be defended. In practice and so in their preaching and teaching directly to laymen like us they were far more loose in their methods. How else could a Calvinist like Edwards say in a sermon that "Christ has died, all things are made ready for you. The only thing now lacking is your consent". And I have a quote from John Owen where he said that "Christ can do nothing for you if you refuse to believe". I have trouble reconciling these with strict the strict determinism that some modern Calvinists, and even they themselves, teach elsewhere.

My one big complaint with this area of Calvinism is that Christ did come to us. We are already not coming to Him on our own. He has come as far as from God to an earth full of sinful men. He died to cover the sin we are bound by. He conquered the sin. He conquered death. There is nothing left to do.
And yet for all of this, there is somehow supposed to be some other work of God that must be done beside what is already done? What has God done to overcome this other speed bump on our way to Him? For sin He died. For death He is raised again, For our hearing, what? He is already the Word? What more can He become?

 

[Silverhair]

lost sinners with fallen natures are still free to make choices, but what they can actual choose to do would be limited to their desires and restricted by their fallen sin natures

Why? Do you not make good choices? What would make you think that even those that have rejected Christ cannot make good choices.

And would not trusting in Christ be a good choice.

The bible is clear that the gospel is sufficient to draw people and people are responsible for the choices they make. Does the God of the bible judge people for things they cannot do?

 

[Psalty]

lost sinners with fallen natures are still free to make choices, but what they can actual choose to do would be limited to their desires and restricted by their fallen sin natures

You are about 8 pages behind and are literally repeating the beginning posts of the thread.

 

[DaveXR650]

My one big complaint with this area of Calvinism is that Christ did come to us. We are already not coming to Him on our own. He has come as far as from God to an earth full of sinful men. He died to cover the sin we are bound by. He conquered the sin. He conquered death. There is nothing left to do.
And yet for all of this, there is somehow supposed to be some other work of God that must be done beside what is already done? What has God done to overcome this other speed bump on our way to Him? For sin He died. For death He is raised again, For our hearing, what? He is already the Word? What more can He become?

When it comes to what is happening that we ourselves observe this is true, and I don't think there will be any difference between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist in the fact that you hear the gospel and then believe or else don't. I'm assuming that people discussing this on a theology board want to look into what it is exactly that is happening. Is everyone being given the information and an equal chance? Are the elect being called out from among the rest? Does the word itself contain some kind of enlightening power or does the Holy Spirit accompany the word, always?, sometimes?, to all or the elect? Is there some enlightening or conviction for everyone (prevenient grace) or only some? Can it always be refused? Or is it overcoming and irresistible to all, some. Or, is everything already done to make our salvation possible and it is completely a matter of hearing the information, and then using our natural ability as humans to respond as we want to. So the issue is how this all comes together. Is it even important? At the most basic level, no. But how you think on these things can certainly affect your opinion of yourself if you are a believer, and the way you witness, or choose not to witness. So it is important at a different level.

Plus. Really nasty things are said to each other by both sides. If you want to know how to respond to this, and how to fellowship (or not) with those on the other side who you come into contact with, you need to know at least where they are coming from.

 

[JesusFan]

Why? Do you not make good choices? What would make you think that even those that have rejected Christ cannot make good choices.

And would not trusting in Christ be a good choice.

The bible is clear that the gospel is sufficient to draw people and people are responsible for the choices they make. Does the God of the bible judge people for things they cannot do?

No, as making good choices is not same as making a decision for Jesus, as lost people all the time make good decisions about their careers, families, finances, yet that is not same as those being spiritually dead trying to make now spiritual "good decisions"

 

[Silverhair]

No, as making good choices is not same as making a decision for Jesus, as lost people all the time make good decisions about their careers, families, finances, yet that is not same as those being spiritually dead trying to make now spiritual "good decisions"

Your saying that while they lost can make good choices for things that have no eternal consequence they cannot do so for the one thing that does save them?

Are you saying that choosing to trust in Christ is not a good choice?

The bible does seem to disagree with you, I do not see that restriction in scripture.

Does God only love some of the world?
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Did Christ not die for all the world?
1Jn 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Does God not want all to come to repentance?
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

What did Jesus say?
Mat 6:33 "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

What did the Holy Spirit say through Paul?
Act 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
Act 17:27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

We are all lost sinners in need of salvation. As Jesus said.
Luk 11:10 "For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.

 

[Psalty]

This is indeed the core issue here. And almost no one is really interested in discussing it with an open mind. Let me state one more time what I have discovered so far. As I said, I believe some areas of Calvinism are problematic. I discovered this by extensive reading of my favorite Calvinists, the Puritans, mostly due to about 12 years ago breaking my leg so bad I was pretty much incapacitated for anything else. And I discovered that the modern, strict, deterministic way the theology is explained by most modern Calvinists is not what the Puritans preached and taught. (Although they would freely assert it when asked to defend Calvinism - against another school of thought.) So what's going on?

I don't know for sure but if it's any help I can tell you that to a post Reformation Calvinist, something indeed can be predestinated, therefore necessary to happen - and at the same time the free will of the individuals involved is not directly manipulated. Furthermore, something major, like the Fall, can be declared to happen, ordained by God, and thus something that had to happen as a necessity - and yet Adam and Eve acted completely according to their own free will.

This is a whole step above the debate people are willing to engage in on here. I would refer you to R.C. Sproul's "Chosen By God" as a quick primer, especially his chapter on free will. He likes Edwards, and if you want to try it, read Edwards "On the Freedom of the Will". Also, John Owen discusses this at length in his works and it's especially useful in his discussion on "Pneumonology". I am currently, when I have time, looking at Richard Muller's "Divine Will and Human Choice, Freedom Contingency and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought". I admit it is a little above my head and education level but maybe if it doesn't drive me nuts it will help prevent senile dementia onset. I would rather do that than puzzles.

I appreciate the references above. It seems like Owens has been pivotal to you, so Ill likely start with him as I have not read him before.
***
As far as epistemology before we ever get to the theology side of determinism and freewill spectrum, there is really a ton of reading to be done on this. Not sure if you have read these or not, but I HIGHLY recommend them all. Some are Christian, Atheist, Deist with varying opinions on free will vs strict determinism. The depth of thought on foundational principles of knowledge and knowing is mind-blowing. This is the order I recommend, to anyone interested.
Descartes: Meditations, and his work Principles
John Locke: Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Baruch Spinoza: Ethics
David Hume: A Treatise on Human Nature, and his work An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals

I have more thoughts to some of this and the prior post, but Im on Spring break roadtripping with the wife, dog, and 4 children and will probably be next week before I can follow up on this. I will probably start a new thread to keep it focused on more of the philosophy side and hopefully we can keep going!

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning -
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0001 GMT ( Fri) / 701 PM EDT 401 pm PDT

 

[JonC]

I showed you what John Lennox said about free will and what it was he was going to refute. That is the subject, not what redefinition you want to make it. You are free to believe what you will but what I said and what Lennox said is not intellectually dishonest, considering Lennox is using that definition as the starting point for taking on Calvinism. You didn't address that post directly as to what Lennox said, but I am not surprised.

Nah. I started this thread. Never cared about John Lennox.

You simply confused this thread with the one about Lennox.

What is intellectually dishonest is when people address opposing positions using strawman arguments.

Sometimes non-Calvinists do this by arguing against "human robot" or "cosmic child abuse" ideas.

Sometimes Calvinists do this by arguing against libertarian free will.


Free-will theology simply does not hold that men choose God apart from divine influence on that person. This is why Free-Will theology presents the work of the Spirit as necessary for a person to come to a state of salvation.

Are there extreme positions within free-will theology? Yes. But there are within Calvinism as well

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to declare that Calvinists oppose sharing the gospel. BUT I can name a couple of movements and several people within Calvinism who believe exactly that.


How is it that believing men only "through the grace of the Holy Spirit", only by being "renewed in understanding" by the Spirit to "rightly understand, think, and will" is uninfluenced???


The difference is that free-will holds men can be influenced by opposing things, or ideas, and choose between these opposing things.

 

[JesusFan]

Nah. I started this thread. Never cared about John Lennox.

You simply confused this thread with the one about Lennox.

What is intellectually dishonest is when people address opposing positions using strawman arguments.

Sometimes non-Calvinists do this by arguing against "human robot" or "cosmic child abuse" ideas.

Sometimes Calvinists do this by arguing against libertarian free will.


Free-will theology simply does not hold that men choose God apart from divine influence on that person. This is why Free-Will theology presents the work of the Spirit as necessary for a person to come to a state of salvation.

Are there extreme positions within free-will theology? Yes. But there are within Calvinism as well

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to declare that Calvinists oppose sharing the gospel. BUT I can name a couple of movements and several people within Calvinism who believe exactly that.


How is it that believing men only "through the grace of the Holy Spirit", only by being "renewed in understanding" by the Spirit to "rightly understand, think, and will" is uninfluenced???


The difference is that free-will holds men can be influenced by opposing things, or ideas, and choose between these opposing things.

Except the scriptures does not support notion of lost sinners having capacity within themselves to decides choices like that, those of a spiritual nature

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As was the case with Onesimus, there is still a bondage that must be answered for. Onesimus returned to Philemon because he was still in bondage to him. Though sinners are the slaves of sin, I don’t know anyone who believes that they must ask permission from sin or stand before the judgment seat of sin to discuss freedom.
If God holds the opportunity for freedom from sin, then it is real. There are no hoops to jump through or red tape to cut. Jesus has finished His work already.

Luke 11:21-22. "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are at peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overpowers him, he takes all his armour in which he trusted, and divides his spoils."
Sinners are the goods of the strong man (the devil), and the Lord has overpowered him and is busy plundering those spoils and freeing them (c.f. Rev. 6:2).
'We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come and given us understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life' (1 John 5:19).

 

[Ben1445]

Luke 11:21-22. "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are at peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overpowers him, he takes all his armour in which he trusted, and divides his spoils."
Sinners are the goods of the strong man (the devil), and the Lord has overpowered him and is busy plundering those spoils and freeing them (c.f. Rev. 6:2).
'We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come and given us understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life' (1 John 5:19).

And yet we are not merely goods. We are living and have volition. We have the ability to resist God. Goods are inanimate. They have no will.
The devil need have no power over anyone. Jesus has conquered.

 

[Psalty]

And yet we are not merely goods. We are living and have volition. We have the ability to resist God. Goods are inanimate. They have no will.
The devil need have no power over anyone. Jesus has conquered.

But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.
— Luke 7:30

 

[DaveXR650]

Nah. I started this thread. Never cared about John Lennox.

And it started out good. That's why I responded first. I think you are on to something with the idea that some of the difficulties understanding theology written before the really modern era are difficult for us to understand. Nevertheless, you at least should care about John Lennox. The first sentence in your opening post about is love really love if the desire is given by God is one of the arguments he uses against determinism.

Free-will theology simply does not hold that men choose God apart from divine influence on that person. This is why Free-Will theology presents the work of the Spirit as necessary for a person to come to a state of salvation.

That is certainly true of Arminian theology, especially if you mean actually reading Arminius. Just like Calvinism tends to move towards hyper-Calvinism (which I think overall, it has done) Arminianism moves towards semi-Pelagianism - as illustrated in Provisionism, which has gotten popular on Youtube, and Lennox, who are specifically arguing from a position of innate, natural ability of men to come to Christ if given the information.

Personally, I think most Baptists I am familiar with use an Arminian model for salvation, range from true Arminianism to Provisionism for coming to faith, but they don't like Arminianism on the back end where if someone leaves the faith the question is whether that is possible for a born again person. So if you want to confine discussion to Arminian vs Calvinism theology that is fine but don't act like there is some kind of straw man argument going on when the best and brightest are currently arguing a more extensive free will than Arminius ever did. Now, did Arminius himself get an unfair rap? I think he did, but I have taken the time to read him, not just about him, and his pamphlet debates with some Puritans. Maybe I need to get out more but I don't know of any real Arminian churches around here at least. Down South maybe some free will Baptists would be closer.

 

[JonC]

And it started out good. That's why I responded first. I think you are on to something with the idea that some of the difficulties understanding theology written before the really modern era are difficult for us to understand. Nevertheless, you at least should care about John Lennox. The first sentence in your opening post about is love really love if the desire is given by God is one of the arguments he uses against determinism.

That is certainly true of Arminian theology, especially if you mean actually reading Arminius. Just like Calvinism tends to move towards hyper-Calvinism (which I think overall, it has done) Arminianism moves towards semi-Pelagianism - as illustrated in Provisionism, which has gotten popular on Youtube, and Lennox, who are specifically arguing from a position of innate, natural ability of men to come to Christ if given the information.

Personally, I think most Baptists I am familiar with use an Arminian model for salvation, range from true Arminianism to Provisionism for coming to faith, but they don't like Arminianism on the back end where if someone leaves the faith the question is whether that is possible for a born again person. So if you want to confine discussion to Arminian vs Calvinism theology that is fine but don't act like there is some kind of straw man argument going on when the best and brightest are currently arguing a more extensive free will than Arminius ever did. Now, did Arminius himself get an unfair rap? I think he did, but I have taken the time to read him, not just about him, and his pamphlet debates with some Puritans. Maybe I need to get out more but I don't know of any real Arminian churches around here at least. Down South maybe some free will Baptists would be closer.

Arminius did get an unfair rap (after his lifetime). He was probably one of the best, of not the best, Calvinistic biblical scholar of his time. But he represented a minority position.
I need to point out that I am not a free-will Baptist. On this topic I think Jonathan Edwards was brilliant - cutting to the meat of the matter to find a common ground rather than steeping in philosophy.


I was criticized for claiming that anti-PSA advocates are being intellectually dishonest when assuming the "cosmic child abuse" argument. The reason is PSA is more than the Father punishing the Son (in the mind of PSA advocates it is God suffering the debt of sin).

Do I believe that works as a defense? Absolutely not. BUT when exploring opposing views one has to use opposing definitions. So I stood up against people "on my side" of the argument because they were not arguing honestly.


It is the same with free will. Even if we find their logic lacking, or disagree with their definitions, we have to evaluate their theology within their own context.


As far as John Lennox goes, I may appreciate some of his ideas BUT when discussing theology I believe it is important those we introduce as sources be a theologian (a scholar in theogy). Lennox isn't. Nothing against the man. But I would not go to a doctor unless he had been formally educated in medicine.

So, while I may entertain his ideas, he certainly does not form a base for an entire theology.

 

[DaveXR650]

Free-will theology holds that the Spirit works within man in such a way as they can chose God (but being flesh they can continue choose to reject God).

Someone should start a thread defending this. I don't think it is often thought through, but it feels comforting.