Dominion vs determinism 3

[DaveXR650]

Many compatibalists say that God determines, and yet we have a will which He has given to us. They say that we choose what we want but would never choose God. The problem is they never address the fact that they also believe that God is the one who has determined that they will never freely choose Him. Martin et al on this board RUN from addressing this.

Compatibilism does say that free will exists, yet God has an overall plan which involves determinism. Calvinists vary on the part about God determining that someone will never choose him. Some flat out do indeed. Others say that God only does that in the sense that man has the propensity to not come to God and that God justly leaves the non-elect to their own free will in the matter. I'm not saying it's right, just that that is what they mean. Calvinists themselves get into debate over this, and in the case of predestination to salvation, some then say it indeed is "double", with God doing the decree to save some must indeed mean he logically decrees not to save others.

I have read a lot of Calvinist literature and am just starting the high level metaphysical arguments for compatibilism, but from what I know so far, the best argument for total depravity is the history of mankind, not metaphysical gyrations. A lot of philosophers have noted this, that we are a mess, with no culture even pursuing virtue at a consistent level, and there is even a lack of individuals when their total lives are examined. And I am just talking about virtue, not an ability to truly draw near to God himself, without his coming to us directly. Even guys like Edwards, who do get into the metaphysical areas, claim this as the best evidence, when discussing salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

Molinists probably have the better answer for how free will and determinism could work at the same time: God simply considered every created world that He could make and chose the one where all free choices matched up with His will.

I thought Molinism was a joke at first too, but when you really think about it, some of it occurs in scripture. When God would tell the Israelites that if they would follow his laws then this or that would occur but if they didn't this other future would occur I assume God is not joking with them and meant what he said. In that sense they themselves help determine the future. I think the "offer" of salvation, on the condition of belief is real and actual too, and that your eternal destiny depends upon that. A lot of Calvinists believe that too and whole books have been written supporting that, some of which have been recommended to me by Martin et al.

Calvinism is problematic in some areas in my opinion. But metaphysically, I don't think you can make a strong case for God really knowing the future, and especially declaring a future prophetically, without allowing for some degree of determinism. The strongest part of Molinism's argument is that no one can really "know" a truly free will decision ahead of time if part of the definition of free will decision is that one could have changed his mind and chosen the "other". The final decision does not exist yet and therefore cannot be known until it happens.

 

[Ben1445]

Compatibilism does say that free will exists, yet God has an overall plan which involves determinism. Calvinists vary on the part about God determining that someone will never choose him. Some flat out do indeed. Others say that God only does that in the sense that man has the propensity to not come to God and that God justly leaves the non-elect to their own free will in the matter. I'm not saying it's right, just that that is what they mean. Calvinists themselves get into debate over this, and in the case of predestination to salvation, some then say it indeed is "double", with God doing the decree to save some must indeed mean he logically decrees not to save others.

I have read a lot of Calvinist literature and am just starting the high level metaphysical arguments for compatibilism, but from what I know so far, the best argument for total depravity is the history of mankind, not metaphysical gyrations. A lot of philosophers have noted this, that we are a mess, with no culture even pursuing virtue at a consistent level, and there is even a lack of individuals when their total lives are examined. And I am just talking about virtue, not an ability to truly draw near to God himself, without his coming to us directly. Even guys like Edwards, who do get into the metaphysical areas, claim this as the best evidence, when discussing salvation.

The best part of salvation and atonement is that it is revealed to children. No understanding of the metaphysical is necessary.

The deeper into the higher thoughts people get, the more they fit the truth of, “professing themselves wise they become fools.”

It fits those areas where people try to figure out and guess what other people are thinking. They come up miserably wrong with people and now think that they understand God? I don’t buy it.

 

[Ben1445]

I thought Molinism was a joke at first too, but when you really think about it, some of it occurs in scripture. When God would tell the Israelites that if they would follow his laws then this or that would occur but if they didn't this other future would occur I assume God is not joking with them and meant what he said. In that sense they themselves help determine the future. I think the "offer" of salvation, on the condition of belief is real and actual too, and that your eternal destiny depends upon that. A lot of Calvinists believe that too and whole books have been written supporting that, some of which have been recommended to me by Martin et al.

Calvinism is problematic in some areas in my opinion. But metaphysically, I don't think you can make a strong case for God really knowing the future, and especially declaring a future prophetically, without allowing for some degree of determinism. The strongest part of Molinism's argument is that no one can really "know" a truly free will decision ahead of time if part of the definition of free will decision is that one could have changed his mind and chosen the "other". The final decision does not exist yet and therefore cannot be known until it happens.

But God is not bound by time. It is His creation.
He has said that he is the beginning and the ending.

Revelation 21:6
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

And that He is able to tell what has not yet happened. So not really knowing the future is not really compatible with what God says of Himself. This does not make Him the cause of it all. He has declared the rights to the final say.

Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[DaveXR650]

I find it easier to just believe that God has the ability to be reactionary.

2 Samuel 22:27
With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure;
and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself unsavoury.

Psalms 18:26
With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure;
and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.

These are “if you, then I,” statements.
Just like when God said to Israel if you follow Me I will bless you and if not, a curse.

As far as finding God, Jesus already says that He knocks, If any man hears and opens, He will…

We serve a God Who has presented us with if/then choices.

I tend to agree with you at heart, and this is how I was raised. If you use this against a classic Arminian or a Calvinist they will point out that God was dealing with a specific group of people whom He had chosen - and he is reaching out to them only. These prophesies and these visions of God were not equally given to the Amalekites and the neighboring tribes. Calvinism uses the people of Israel after the flesh and as a nation to support it's ideas of God doing the choosing. What is told the people of Israel is that they indeed were no better than their neighbors and their blessings were totally due to God's choice.

As far as Jesus standing at the door and knocking, a while back I had some of the Calvinists on here really mad at me because they did as many modern Calvinists do - they claimed that was inappropriate scripture to use regarding salvation. When I pointed out and gave quotes of multiple Calvinist preachers who used that very verse in appealing to men to come to Christ they flipped out. Point is, Calvinists use that passage too.

 

[Ben1445]

I tend to agree with you at heart, and this is how I was raised. If you use this against a classic Arminian or a Calvinist they will point out that God was dealing with a specific group of people whom He had chosen - and he is reaching out to them only. These prophesies and these visions of God were not equally given to the Amalekites and the neighboring tribes. Calvinism uses the people of Israel after the flesh and as a nation to support it's ideas of God doing the choosing. What is told the people of Israel is that they indeed were no better than their neighbors and their blessings were totally due to God's choice.

As far as Jesus standing at the door and knocking, a while back I had some of the Calvinists on here really mad at me because they did as many modern Calvinists do - they claimed that was inappropriate scripture to use regarding salvation. When I pointed out and gave quotes of multiple Calvinist preachers who used that very verse in appealing to men to come to Christ they flipped out. Point is, Calvinists use that passage too.

As far as not given equally, the book of Jonah is about Jonah and the Israelites??

Ruth was an Israelite??
Rahab?
The widow of Zaraphath?
The centurion and his servant?
The Philistine Lord and Pharaohs house when Abraham and Isaac hid the truth of their marriages?

God does not only speak to “His” people.
It is true that revelation(Scripture) came through Israel, but following God is not exclusively Israel. Melchizedek was not Hebrew. Jethro was not. Balaam was not. What did Balaam have if not revelation from God? And Balaam was destroyed with the rest of the Canaanites.

 

[Psalty]

Compatibilism does say that free will exists, yet God has an overall plan which involves determinism. Calvinists vary on the part about God determining that someone will never choose him. Some flat out do indeed. Others say that God only does that in the sense that man has the propensity to not come to God and that God justly leaves the non-elect to their own free will in the matter. I'm not saying it's right, just that that is what they mean. Calvinists themselves get into debate over this, and in the case of predestination to salvation, some then say it indeed is "double", with God doing the decree to save some must indeed mean he logically decrees not to save others.

I have read a lot of Calvinist literature and am just starting the high level metaphysical arguments for compatibilism, but from what I know so far, the best argument for total depravity is the history of mankind, not metaphysical gyrations. A lot of philosophers have noted this, that we are a mess, with no culture even pursuing virtue at a consistent level, and there is even a lack of individuals when their total lives are examined. And I am just talking about virtue, not an ability to truly draw near to God himself, without his coming to us directly. Even guys like Edwards, who do get into the metaphysical areas, claim this as the best evidence, when discussing salvation.

I think total depravity gets into what you and I were talking about earlier: It appears that humans are able to make non-moral related choices, moral choice that are not salvific, and apparently moral salvific choices.

Compatibalists would have you believe that all choices made are possible, but when you see an apparent salvific choice to follow Christ, that this is only possible for God to effectually do this.

This is a purely definitional and presuppositional argument. In fact, if you would go by other choices made, the pattern would be that humans are able to make morally right choices as well as non-moral, AND SALVIFIC.

As far as culturally being a mess, there is no doubt that we are, but I believe this has more to do with eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil than God effectually decreeing that no one may choose salvation… I find the latter to be lacking signifficant philosophical, and more importantly, scriptural support. Often the calvinist cites Genesis 6, yet if this is the natural output of TD, why is this typically not seen? There is always a remnant that chooses God, and even generations of the righteous.

 

[Psalty]

I thought Molinism was a joke at first too, but when you really think about it, some of it occurs in scripture. When God would tell the Israelites that if they would follow his laws then this or that would occur but if they didn't this other future would occur I assume God is not joking with them and meant what he said. In that sense they themselves help determine the future. I think the "offer" of salvation, on the condition of belief is real and actual too, and that your eternal destiny depends upon that. A lot of Calvinists believe that too and whole books have been written supporting that, some of which have been recommended to me by Martin et al.

I wouldnt say Molinism is a joke, I just find it a much less probable likelyhood, much like a find everything that appears to be a choice being determined an unlikelyhood. I tend to take reality at face value. I am not into Berkeley’s or Humes philosophical ideas, even though they are plausible.

Calvinism is problematic in some areas in my opinion. But metaphysically, I don't think you can make a strong case for God really knowing the future, and especially declaring a future prophetically, without allowing for some degree of determinism. The strongest part of Molinism's argument is that no one can really "know" a truly free will decision ahead of time if part of the definition of free will decision is that one could have changed his mind and chosen the "other". The final decision does not exist yet and therefore cannot be known until it happens.

Knowledge of the future is a problem for any system to try to explain… perhaps more problematic for a free will advocate, but at the end of the day it causes challenges for each system. I think the moral implications of a God who knows all things because He determines all things in a deterministic system are worse for a theology of God’s goodness, but that is a different issue ;D

 

[JonC]

You’re going to have to define compatibalism.

Many compatibalists say that God determines, and yet we have a will which He has given to us. They say that we choose what we want but would never choose God. The problem is they never address the fact that they also believe that God is the one who has determined that they will never freely choose Him. Martin et al on this board RUN from addressing this.

Molinists probably have the better answer for how free will and determinism could work at the same time: God simply considered every created world that He could make and chose the one where all free choices matched up with His will.

I disagree with all of these, but the Molinist position is more tenable than the compatibalist word-game that I laid out above, in my mind.

By "compatiblism" I men that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

If we were dealing with only human will then a case could be made that one excludes the other. But we are dealing with human will and God. These are not two equal things and cannot be placed into the same category.

Compatiblism here places the mind and plan of God eternally above the minds and plans of men.

Man makes his plans, but God controls the outcome.

 

[Psalty]

By "compatiblism" I men that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

If we were dealing with only human will then a case could be made that one excludes the other. But we are dealing with human will and God. These are not two equal things and cannot be placed into the same category.

Compatiblism here places the mind and plan of God eternally above the minds and plans of men.

Man makes his plans, but God controls the outcome.

How you explained this is not classic compatibalism, though.

Classic philosophical compatibalism is that the universe is determined, and that free will also exists at the same time.

No one would deny that God having a will and humans having a will is compatible. Nor would anyone deny that Gods plan is above mans.

The question about conpatibalism is your last line. Can God control all salvific outcomes, and yet humans retain choice or will? By definition these are in conflict.

 

[JonC]

How you explained this is not classic compatibalism, though.

Classic philosophical compatibalism is that the universe is determined, and that free will also exists at the same time.

You said that Compatiblism "is that the universe is determined, and that free will also exists at the same time."

I said Compatibilism is the idea that "free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive."


What exactly do you view as the difference between those definitions?

 

[Psalty]

You said that Compatiblism "is that the universe is determined, and that free will also exists at the same time."

I said Compatibilism is the idea that "free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive."


What exactly do you view as the difference between those definitions?

I said your explanation, not your definition.

 

[JonC]

I said your explanation, not your definition.

My explanation is the definition. Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. Nothing else needs to be explained.


My application is not a definition (mine or yours) for Compatibilism. It is an application.

Obviously an application is not the definition.

I am merely pointing out that the issue within the biblical context falls within Compatibilism (that the opposing camps ignore significant truths found in the Bible to affirm only one aspect).

 

[Psalty]

My explanation is the definition. Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. Nothing else needs to be explained.


My application is not a definition (mine or yours) for Compatibilism. It is an application.

Obviously an application is not the definition.

Right, I’m pointing out that your application is incompatible with your definition. The way you explained it in your last line, as I referenced. Edit: for reference:

The question about conpatibalism is your last line. Can God control all salvific outcomes, and yet humans retain choice or will? By definition these are in conflict.

I am merely pointing out that the issue within the biblical context falls within Compatibilism (that the opposing camps ignore significant truths found in the Bible to affirm only one aspect).

I think on this point, the issue of scope of application of scripture, or denial of passages, is the typical culprit. I see many calvinists and compatibalists vastly expand TULIP prooftexts beyond their context. I see many free-willers deny that God predestines some things. I see massive, assumptive claims about what the sovereignty of God is. There is a way to reconcile scripture on these issues, but typically people do not pursue it.

 

[DaveXR650]

As far as not given equally, the book of Jonah is about Jonah and the Israelites??

Ruth was an Israelite??
Rahab?
The widow of Zaraphath?
The centurion and his servant?
The Philistine Lord and Pharaohs house when Abraham and Isaac hid the truth of their marriages?

God does not only speak to “His” people.

That's true. But my point is, that people who argue against Calvinism on the basis that it's not "fair", use the premise that the provision of the needed influences and the gospel message are distributed sufficiently so that we all have a fair chance at it. But every pagan town did not have a Jewish street preacher going through it like Ninevah did, and what are the odds that everybody from the king down, would repent. Clearly there was selective salvific (or at least repentance orientation) that was sovereignly given to everyone in that town and not others, who did not have an equal chance. Calvinism just says that this is not unfair because all of us are really and truly and willfully guilty as we are. What all the other systems are doing is, because they see mercy given to this one or that, they bump up the standard of what God's love has to be in order to be truly loving or "fair". Calvinism says you have no right to judge whether God is fair in allowing you to follow what turns out to be your own, natural free will.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am merely pointing out that the issue within the biblical context falls within Compatibilism (that the opposing camps ignore significant truths found in the Bible to affirm only one aspect).

This is what happens with all theology. And it happens even worse without theology. This is the biggest argument against those who use only scripture. Some scriptures seem to contradict other scriptures. Obviously, the truth of them doesn't contradict, so it's useful to be able to refer to your theological system for a guide for further study. Scripture is supreme of course, but there again, the best theologies affirm that. And judged in that manner, I have and will always have, a high regard for what we call Calvinism. That is way too much for some on this board, and not enough for others, but so what.

 

[DaveXR650]

Many compatibalists say that God determines, and yet we have a will which He has given to us. They say that we choose what we want but would never choose God. The problem is they never address the fact that they also believe that God is the one who has determined that they will never freely choose Him. Martin et al on this board RUN from addressing this.

So in light of what we have been discussing above I want to revisit this concept. While it is true that some Calvinists have a view leaning so far towards determinism that they do view God as determining that many will not come to Christ, the reason for this is that left to their own free wills they will not come to Christ. That is an important distinction. So when you really think this through, the Calvinist is saying that if you don't come to Christ after hearing the gospel the reason is that God has respected your own, sovereign free will and left you to follow your own desires.

So, once again, the key to understanding this is understanding the human will, not so much determinism or metaphysics.

 

[Psalty]

So in light of what we have been discussing above I want to revisit this concept. While it is true that some Calvinists have a view leaning so far towards determinism that they do view God as determining that many will not come to Christ, the reason for this is that left to their own free wills they will not come to Christ. That is an important distinction. So when you really think this through, the Calvinist is saying that if you don't come to Christ after hearing the gospel the reason is that God has respected your own, sovereign free will and left you to follow your own desires.

So, once again, the key to understanding this is understanding the human will, not so much determinism or metaphysics.

I appreciate you addressing this. I do understand the way that it is phrased, that regardless of “left on their own they wont come”, yet it still presents the question: who created man with the inability to come?

This is simply taking the compatibalists view that humans by their will and nature will not come. Left at that, it sounds very free-will-ish. But the calvinist or compatibalist will agree that God is the one who has put humans in that condition, with that nature from birth.

In this sense, most compatibilalists will never address the fact that they believe that God has effectually decreed man to have a broken will to never choose salvation.

Have I laid that out correctly, or would you correct this somehow?

 

[DaveXR650]

Have I laid that out correctly, or would you correct this somehow?

I would correct it but in all fairness I first have to admit that some, maybe most Calvinists, believe it exactly as you have charged so I cannot defend them and won't try. But let me just say this:

I appreciate you addressing this. I do understand the way that it is phrased, that regardless of “left on their own they wont come”, yet it still presents the question: who created man with the inability to come?

This does get back to determinism and to the question of if determinism is true then is it necessary that God created evil. And what would it mean "to create evil". The Calvinist confessions say God does not make anyone do evil. And there is plenty of metaphysical wrangling on this but basically the answer I see most, from Calvinists who are willing to do more than recite a line from a confession, is an answer that should please free willers. Here it is.
It is not necessary that God actually create evil, only that he create separate beings capable of evil. (men and angels, for example). He can
give them freedom to do evil and thus be the originators of evil without God causing it himself. And, with some combination of foreknowledge
by allowing this to take place it can be said that it was decreed and yet not "caused" by God. Of course it can be said, and this is a major
argument for atheism, that if God just knew what finite creatures would do in a set of circumstances, and did not "fix" that, then he is
sharing in their guilt. Many free willers use that and I warn them they are headed down a path toward atheism.

Now the above still doesn't answer the question of our depraved and malevolent free will that Calvinism claims. Here is where the theology of what the fall means and the nature of man comes in. Wouldn't the free will of each person coming into the world still be neutral towards things of God? Calvinists say that our human nature was designed for fellowship and dependence upon God. The Fall broke this, and without this we are incomplete, malformed images of what we should be. Thus almost all Christianity, not just Calvinism, puts some premium upon God's grace as essential to even our coming to Christ. As for angels who rebelled, no information is given. They are of different substance than us and Calvinists note - have no provision made for repentance.

So. In short the answer is that man does not have to be created directly with an inability to come. But without God's grace man is incomplete, subject to sin and death, easily deceived, self absorbed and everything else that we know to be true about ourselves. And, for all the free willers, there is a true sense in that when you see that, keep in mind that you are actually observing the results of God respecting our free wills and allowing it to be completely independent of God and proceed to it's logical endpoint. So, while I do think Calvinism, as a theology, when every single point is considered, may have some problems, it is a formidable theology when explained fully and no one need run from it's claims.

 

[DaveXR650]

Now the obvious answer to the above would be that true, man after the fall, is prone to all kinds of sin and selfishness. But, if man, before the fall, had a free will that was libertarian enough to allow him to abandon God's advice and go with Satan's counsel then would he not retain at least enough free will to appeal to God and his plan of salvation? And that's what I'm not sure of. Modern Provisionism asserts that this is true, many non-Calvinist Baptists believe this, Church of Christ, many Catholics, and from what I have seen, many early church fathers. So I don't know.