Dominion vs determinism 3

[JesusFan]

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.

Adam had real free will to exercise, being created with sinless humanity state and until he chosose to rebel against God, but after the Fall, our sin natures no longer even desire left tothemselves to obey much less come to God

 

[Psalty]

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:

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.

You had two great posts here in a row.

I do think that at the end of the day determinism and compatibalism hang heavily on how you view the fall and what happened before it.

If one states that there was true libertarian free will prior to the Fall, this begs the underlying problem for the determinist/compatibalist that now the definition of Sovereignty on that system has changed.

On the other hand, if one states everything was determined, this of course points God to being the direct cause of Sin, something I think most will agree is not biblically supported.

Additionally, the compatibalist view runs into major problems in that the Fall is a singular event based on a singular choice. If God determins the ends, but not the means, how can He have an eternal plan when it would all hinge on a singular choice?

 

[DaveXR650]

Adam had real free will to exercise, being created with sinless humanity state and until he chosose to rebel against God, but after the Fall, our sin natures no longer even desire left tothemselves to obey much less come to God

Yes. I think that you have described the Calvinist position on this, and for that matter, the Arminian position, well. And because you are describing our own sin natures, which represent nothing more than us following our own free wills, we can be blamed.

 

[DaveXR650]

I do think that at the end of the day determinism and compatibalism hang heavily on how you view the fall and what happened before it.

Yes, how you view the fall and what it did to us who come after. But also it depends on how you view foreknowledge and whether it is possible for God to look into the future and really tell what is going to be in a detached way and know it will be so - without him also having to decree it be so.

If one states that there was true libertarian free will prior to the Fall, this begs the underlying problem for the determinist/compatibalist that now the definition of Sovereignty on that system has changed.

That brings up something that got me thinking about this too. In a debate on this I heard a prominent Calvinist debater once say (to paraphrase). "You would almost think these free willers think that the whole thing with man and his relationship with God is about free will!" Well, I got to thinking, the opening story of man and his relationship to God was indeed about free will. God, put a tree in the middle of the garden and then specifically told the man that he was not to eat of the fruit. God set things up so there was no real want or need for them to eat of it. They had an abundance of other food and so on. But the tree was there and then God leaves them alone. He even allowed Satan access to discuss the matter with them, even though he had no real pull on them he was able to reason with them intelligently. Maybe it was all about free will.

 

[DaveXR650]

Additionally, the compatibalist view runs into major problems in that the Fall is a singular event based on a singular choice. If God determins the ends, but not the means, how can He have an eternal plan when it would all hinge on a singular choice?

On the other hand scriptures seem to me at least clear that God had in some way discussed the son being the lamb slain, and the elect, before the fall. You may have trouble getting around that the Fall was indeed known to occur for sure, not just as a possibility, and possibly decreed. And it was preceded by several events that had already taken place that would be absurd if it didn't take place. And everyone agrees that Adam and Eve did indeed have enough free will to have freely refused Satan. So you are back to compatibilism or you have to start explaining some pretty plain scriptures in an alternative way.

 

[DaveXR650]

As a side note, here's what concerns me with the Calvinist explanation of soteriology. I agree that there is good evidence from scripture and from experience with people, and my own nature, that all men are dependent upon God's grace without which we will individually and collectively drift further and further away from God and towards decay and sin. And it seems obvious to me that men can hear the same gospel and some who seem to have every likely reason to reject it believe, and some who have all the advantages turn away from the considerable light they have. And there are times of revivals and awakenings that occur to where the only valid explanation can be a moving of the Spirit. This would be impossible if God were not sovereign in salvation. In addition, some people, like some of the prominent atheists, study scripture and know it all with excellent accuracy, yet, like the Pharisees of old, they just become more blind. Others, study it with the idea of proving it wrong, and then end up saved. I'm totally on board with the Calvinist demand that God be sovereign in this manner. But what concerns me is that some, not all, but some Calvinists, seem to be misrepresenting God in that they portray this as God arbitrarily withholding what would have been saving grace from someone and giving it to someone sitting beside him - just on a whim, because he can. I'm not saying that God doesn't have the right to do this. He does. And indeed he has the right to not save any of us. "Who are you to reply against God?" Indeed. What I have problems with is that I don't find evidence in scripture that God does this to people in an arbitrary way so we have no right to make that be God's method either.

 

[Ben1445]

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.

People hate me when I say this and will inevitably ask me about the people who lived in North America in whatever year they fancy.

But we don’t have an exhaustive record on the work of God.

1 Kings 19:18
Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

What did each of the 7,000 people do?

And …
Acts 10:35
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

 

[Ben1445]

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.

Is it that no man seeks after a Saviour, or no man seeks after God?

 

[DaveXR650]

People hate me when I say this and will inevitably ask me about the people who lived in North America in whatever year they fancy.

But we don’t have an exhaustive record on the work of God.

That's true but I just don't think you can make a realistic case that a Shawnee Indian in North America in 1700 had anything like the light of a Brit living in 1700 Puritan England. I will concede that it's up to God to judge those folks how he wants, and Acts 10:35 may just indicate that. Actually I think it is just telling the Jews that others besides Jews can be saved. They had a hard time grasping that.

Besides, the main point of what I was saying was that all of us who are human have this horrible problem with our will. If you bring up the Israelites, and read say, just Deuteronomy, what you find is that even among God's chosen people a record of constant failure, with much advantage, and repeated promises to repent, but it never lasted. Finally, you have God saying that he is going to write his law on the hearts of men. This bolsters Calvinism's case in that an actual work upon our hearts is the only remedy. No amount of "provision" of light or influence will work. This isn't philosophy, this is what we see in recorded history both Biblical and secular. To me, this is Calvinism's strongest case. I was drawn to Calvinism based upon it's seemingly accurate assessment of our real human condition and our natural human natures. At the time, I had no understanding of the deterministic philosophy behind it, which I have never been convinced of or really cared to understand.