-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinism and Free Will
- Thread starter JustChristian
- Start date
- Status
Steven2006
New Member
If is it God's will to allow man free will, then He is still sovereign in that decision. God created and is in control over everything, even our logic of things, so He is not limited to our logic and thinking. If God wanted man to have the free will in order to believe in Him or not to believe, then in essence He is in control of allowing us that freedom. I don't see it as God having to abdicate anything if He so chooses not to. It is only in our minds that God can be limited, not in the capabilities of God. How can anyone say that God couldn't have created mans free will, for Him? If God chooses to have us choose, He is still sovereign.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Humblesmith
Member
npetreley said:
There is another alternative. It could very well be that since God made Adam and Eve in his image, then he wanted to respect that image by letting them decide whether or not to either love him or hate him.
In light of the alternatives that you pointed out (and rightfully condemn, I might add), and the alternative of God causing sin, I see the one presented here to be the only orthodox choice that I am aware of.
Humblesmith said:
That's a very, very naive interpretation of the events. It might make sense if all things were equal - that is, there were no outside influences to make a difference in the outcome. Wasn't God aware that satan would gum up the works? Wasn't God aware that Eve would fall for it? Was God unable to prevent him from getting in the garden? To repeat an earlier point, didn't God know better than to plant an off-limits tree in the garden?
And how can satan be an "outside" influence in the true sense of the word, anyway? Isn't it true that satan can do nothing without God's permission? If that is true, then it follows that satan was not only THERE with God's permission, satan tempted Eve with God's permission, and God was fully aware of the consequences before He let satan in the garden.
I could go on, but you see, it's not the naive "aren't they adorable, I'll just let them do what they're going to do and it's worth the risk" scenario. There is no such thing as "risk" with God unless He is incapable of foreseeing every possible outcome. And that leaves you with open theism.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Humblesmith
Member
Brother Bob said:
BB and AQ: As you are realizing, this is exactly the consequence of the strong Calvinist viewpoint. I don't remember those in the past openly admitting it as much as they have been lately. Some will dodge a bit at this point, and fall back on something that softens the blow. But in the end, they seem to truly believe that God causes sin. Theology gone to seed.
Humblesmith said:
Didn't you read my response? You know, I could easily make the leap of logic and claim that open theism is the consequence of free-willism. But I'm not assuming that. I included it as a possibility and I'm leaving it open for you guys to tell me. I would appreciate it if you would treat us with the same degree of respect. I've already said it doesn't make God the author of sin. Just because YOU think so doesn't make it true, any more than if I thought free-willism always leads to open theism would make THAT true. This is just your silly way of saying, "For shame, for shame, those Calvinists". That's pathetic.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Humblesmith
Member
It wouldn't have been a true decision to love God or hate him unless there was a true alternative. Hence satan is allowed in, and allowed to do his work.
I'm not saying "aren't they adorable" or "its worth the risk." As you correctly pointed out, God had a plan from the beginning, and is sovereign over that plan. But that does not *have* to conflict with is respect for his own image in man.
I'm not saying "aren't they adorable" or "its worth the risk." As you correctly pointed out, God had a plan from the beginning, and is sovereign over that plan. But that does not *have* to conflict with is respect for his own image in man.
Humblesmith said:
If you're right, I have to question His respect, then. He doesn't teach them how to discern between good and evil (isn't that part of His image, too?), plants the forbidden tree, lets in satan to convince them to disobey, fully aware of what the result will be - this is respect?
So this God respects Adam and Eve so much that He stands idly by while they condemn the human race. THEN, He condemns His only begotten son to the cross in order to fix the problem. If He had put in a little more effort up front, He could have avoided that.
To me, you're just describing a different version of the incompetent God.
But this we agree upon: God had a plan from the beginning. And that plan included sin. How can you disagree? You may believe His motives were driven by "respect", but it still amounts to the same thing. God planned from the beginning that Adam and Eve would sin and cause the fall of the human race. Deny that, and you have to go back to the idea that sin came as a surprise to God. Agree, and you either have to say God is the author of sin, or recognize that there are primary and secondary causes, like I said.
Humblesmith
Member
npetreley said:
If you don't hold it, I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, so I apologize.
But it has been openly and directly stated on this BB several times that God causes sin and evil. If you don't hold this, I again apologize.
But the Calvinist blood boils at the speculations of heresy caused by the free-willers........well, the same thing happens to me when the theology goes too far the other way.
I'd better back off of this one.
I have four children. I am an imperfect human, but I like to think that I'm at least a decent mother. My kids are, for the most part, good kids. The older two have been saved, and the younger two are too young to understand salvation just yet. So, anyway, my oldest has this problem with lying. He has also been getting into a lot of trouble at school. We have explained right from wrong to him, and he knows quite well what our expectations are. Several weeks ago, his math teacher began having him stay after school occasionally to get extra help because he does very poorly at math. Now, my son has had more than a few detentions this year, and I felt pretty sure he would use staying after for math help to cover for a detention eventually. However, I did not double check every time he told me he needed to stay after because I knew if he did this, I would catch him eventually. Sure enough this past week, he did exactly what I figured he would, the teacher emailed me to let me know what happened the next day, and he was busted. So, now he is taking the punishment for his sins...both getting in trouble and lying about it.
Now, if I, as an imperfect parent will give my child a chance to make the choice to do right or wrong, even though I know he is going to make the wrong choice and I am going to have to punish him, what makes you think God won't do that? Naturally, I don't have control over my son's decisions when he is away from home. All I can do is teach him what he is supposed to do at home and hope that he will make the right decision later, and I don't have the benefit of having God's foresight to know for sure what decision he will make. I love my son, though, and I want him to make the right choice for himself because he loves God, he loves me, and he wants to honor God and honor me, his mother, by doing the right thing. God knows what choice we're going to make, much as I was pretty sure what choice my son would make in this instance. However, he allows us, his children, to make those choices for ourself, which will prove to the world how much we love God. He lets us make these choices because He loves us, and He wants us to love Him. Would it really be love if he forced us to make a certain choice in every situation? Would I really be loving my son and preparing him for the real world if I walked beside him every step of every day, forcing him to make the right choices? I don't think so.
I bet everyone who believes that God has already decided what choice every person will make, rather than just knowing what choice they will make ahead of time, really enjoyed the story "The Stepford Wives". That is what you are equating all of us to...a bunch of robots that can not make a decision on our own because we have already been programmed to make every decision we make in our lives.
Hey, wouldn't that mean that God "programmed" me to make the decision to type this post? :laugh: Now, why would He do that? :laugh:
Now, if I, as an imperfect parent will give my child a chance to make the choice to do right or wrong, even though I know he is going to make the wrong choice and I am going to have to punish him, what makes you think God won't do that? Naturally, I don't have control over my son's decisions when he is away from home. All I can do is teach him what he is supposed to do at home and hope that he will make the right decision later, and I don't have the benefit of having God's foresight to know for sure what decision he will make. I love my son, though, and I want him to make the right choice for himself because he loves God, he loves me, and he wants to honor God and honor me, his mother, by doing the right thing. God knows what choice we're going to make, much as I was pretty sure what choice my son would make in this instance. However, he allows us, his children, to make those choices for ourself, which will prove to the world how much we love God. He lets us make these choices because He loves us, and He wants us to love Him. Would it really be love if he forced us to make a certain choice in every situation? Would I really be loving my son and preparing him for the real world if I walked beside him every step of every day, forcing him to make the right choices? I don't think so.
I bet everyone who believes that God has already decided what choice every person will make, rather than just knowing what choice they will make ahead of time, really enjoyed the story "The Stepford Wives". That is what you are equating all of us to...a bunch of robots that can not make a decision on our own because we have already been programmed to make every decision we make in our lives.
Hey, wouldn't that mean that God "programmed" me to make the decision to type this post? :laugh: Now, why would He do that? :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex Quackenbush
New Member
In fact it has been admitted by another poster that he believes GOD WANTED ADAM and EVE to sin. Yes, it indeed is the end of this viewpoint and the implications and accusation against God in this end is severe and injurious not only to sound doctrine but to the person holding to this belief as well.Humblesmith said:
I am a former Limited Atonementist as well as holding to other tenets of the TULIP of Calvinism. It is the very ends, such as this one, that my studies brought me, hence I abandoned my position in support of the TULIP. And though I hold to eternal security, I do not hold to it with the view of perseverance that Calvinists teach and believe.
During the years I held to my former beliefs I did not see the charge against God being the planner and cause of sin so easily and readily embraced as I see now. In fact, such ideas were eschewed by most Calvinists I knew and this was a minority position. And it may be that here a minority position is being expressed but if so, you would normally have other Calvinists who do not hold to that view challenge it promptly and I simply don't see that being done.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to make sure I have a good grasp on what some of you are saying. Some seem to indicate that God had a wonderful plan for mankind that got messed up in the garden (he had not intended the fall) and now we are on Plan "B" because man was uncooperative.
God is omniscient. (At least I think we all believe this) God knew that man would fall, fail... before he ever created him. God knew not only that man could fail, but that he would fail. Was there a flaw in the design... or does it sound like the design was purposeful?
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. Was "very good" implying perfect in every detail, i.e..... no flaw, or was it saying "exactly as I determined it should be" (this suits my will and purpose)?
Let's say I built something with a weak foundation And I build it in such a way that a good stiff wind will bring it down. And I just happen to place it where a good stiff wind will blow. I did not bring the structure down.... but you might say that I, by design, intended that it should come down.
Why was the lamb slain from the foundation if it was not known/purposed/declared/decreed from the foundation that the slaying was to be required?
Sounds to me like God intended for...... by design...... man to fall/fail!!!!!!!!
What is wrong with God "declaring the end from the beginning"?
Some of us feebleminded, childlike, unlearned, naive, simpletons just happen to believe that "Jesus is Lord" is not just a title, but that he actually does as he will among the armies of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth, that none can stay his hand.
Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
God is omniscient. (At least I think we all believe this) God knew that man would fall, fail... before he ever created him. God knew not only that man could fail, but that he would fail. Was there a flaw in the design... or does it sound like the design was purposeful?
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. Was "very good" implying perfect in every detail, i.e..... no flaw, or was it saying "exactly as I determined it should be" (this suits my will and purpose)?
Let's say I built something with a weak foundation And I build it in such a way that a good stiff wind will bring it down. And I just happen to place it where a good stiff wind will blow. I did not bring the structure down.... but you might say that I, by design, intended that it should come down.
Why was the lamb slain from the foundation if it was not known/purposed/declared/decreed from the foundation that the slaying was to be required?
Sounds to me like God intended for...... by design...... man to fall/fail!!!!!!!!
What is wrong with God "declaring the end from the beginning"?
Some of us feebleminded, childlike, unlearned, naive, simpletons just happen to believe that "Jesus is Lord" is not just a title, but that he actually does as he will among the armies of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth, that none can stay his hand.
Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Alex Quackenbush
New Member
First know this, you do NOT have a good grasp of what has been said. No one has used the language you are using nor the characterizations you are using. No one has suggested a plan B, no one has used the juvenile characterization of the fall in the garden as "a wonderful plan that got messed up in the garden". So you have started quite amiss and your highly prejudicial mischaracterizations of those holding to views contrary to yours belies intimations for respectful dialogue. But while I am here I will treat the remainder of your post though you have begun with the revelation of your gross misunderstanding of the views of others. Hence the basis for you argument fails from the start.TomMann said:
The problem here is elementary and obvious and appears to be escaping you. You treat your question as a fact, assumed, understood or a rhetorical one that concludes in your own mind minus an examination of pertinent and critical doctrines, never minding the text. God knowing what man will do, in this case sin, does not equate with a flaw or purpose on the part of God that man do wrong. Man purposed to sin, God purposed to use that sin by man to accomplish His purpose. It is antithetical to the essence of the person of God to purpose sin. It is quite harmonious and compatible to the essence of God, particularly His Holiness, that he does not purpose or plan sin but instead uses the flawed and sinful purposes of man and Satan to accomplish His will. Genesis 50:20 in a most outstanding way illustrates this dynamic:TomMann said:
First it says "very good" and while you might believe it implies "perfect" you have provided absolutely nothing in the way of exegesis or hermeneutical justification for your interpretation of very good meaning perfect or without flaw. And that isn't the case so your introduction of the idea of perfect in every detail is an erroneous and incompatible concept to the text. Unfortunately what you have done is determined that creation here has to be viewed as either perfect in every detail or flawed. The Bible simply refers to it in the qualitative description as "very good". A simple Hebrew word search would reveal that the qualitative use of this adjective ṭôb is to communicate virtue and not perfection in the sense of immutability which is what you are demanding it mean here which is the word tâmîym.TomMann said:
The most egregious problem here, of course, is you are presuming to measure God's purposes with your finite ones. But even in doing that, if you analogy is attempted to be prescribed, it fails. You are ASSUMING an intent by God not even intimated in Scripture. You are concluding from your own mind that God could have no other purpose in creating Adam and Eve with the capacity to fail and temptations around them in the prohibition and Satan, than to have created them purposely to fail. At what point in this text is this even hinted? In fact it isn't. Adam failed, Adam sinned, because He chose to sin. Your problem, as with many, is understanding the nature of the decrees of God as well as attempting to rationalize that if one sins and God is Sovereign then that means God purposed for that person to sin. And if you understanding of what Sovereignty were true, well you might have a case and in your mind I understand why you think you have a case. However, it is a misunderstanding of the Bible doctrine of Divine Sovereignty that is leading you to injure the text and related concepts.TomMann said:
The expression of God's Sovereignty in the Divine decree(s) is just that, the expression of His Sovereignty. But in this case you go from charging God with purposing man to sin as opposed to using man's sinful purposes in His decree(s) to this concept about the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world which has no connection IN THIS ARGUMENT (soteriologically they are related but we aren't arguing that). The lamb was slain before the foundation of the world simply communicates God's decree in eternity past as Christ being the Divine plan for man's salvation. God knowing man would sin and God purposing man to sin are certainly far far away from each other and God knowing man would sin in eternity past goes hand in hand with God planning mankind's salvation in eternity past.TomMann said:
Last edited by a moderator:
TomMann said:
Big problem with this analogy, the foundation was built on the rock of God and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
We differ in the belief whether God created evil or if it exist because of the truth of nature in His creation. I think we would agree that our omniscient God knew evil would exist and in this we may differ on whether He made it to exist or allowed it to exist. Personally, I think God being a God of Truth allowed it to exist as a truth in the very nature that He being self derived made for Himself to be true, and with that existing truth He created creatures for His pleasure, and although He was only Good his creatures that He made with a spirit and His likeness were not capable to be only good because there is only one God.
(Gen 3:22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:
“Behold, the man is become one of us,” is a rhetorical statement, as in, “Look at what man thinks he has become” as man freely chose to believe a lie that he could be as God, which is impossible; I think it implies that even though man was made with a spirit in the image of God he is now facing the reality that he can not be a god. The knowledge of good and evil is Gods alone to judge and with this knowledge man had become dead in sin against God. The tree of life is now kept from them except through Him, in His Spirit.
Sure, God knew that man would fall and that is seen in the promise in Christ before the foundation of the world. God in His loving nature gave the gift of grace in the Spirit of His Only Begotten that man could live in His Spirit. This only exemplifies that great loving nature of God in that He would freely give of Himself for the love of His creatures, a necessary sacrifice because of the truth of the creation of creatures possessing His likeness and image so that they could become eternally perfect through His Spirit. The Gospel message that God has provided to us reveals the love He had for all His creatures before the foundation of the world and testifies to our freedoms being made in His image showing us that although we fall short in the knowledge of judgment He has provided us a way of life in this truth which we must freely except. “lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life,”
Knowing and intending are not the same thing. You place the responsibility of evil on God here, big problem!
God by the truth in design of the world being made “very good” that evil would exist. This does not equate to the assumption that He created evil for evil is not part of His nature and His work is perfect. A God of truth and without inequity does not create immorality!
(Deu 32:4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Nothing at all, God declaring the end from the beginning is in Christ and this is the promise where His counsel that will stand.
Last edited by a moderator:
youngmom4 said:
Nope, Love that is forced is not love, and is not the truth in the nature of love. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst, for they shall be filled; this comes from free love and provides for creatures with a free spirit. To limit the water that God gives to His creatures that thirst is to limit God’s love.
God is in control within the truth of His Own self derived true nature and He knows our hearts and He gives love to us freely and in may ways He intervenes in our lives to draw us to Him showing us His awesome power but NEVER as it would be against the truth of nature in His creatures that He made knowing they would have knowledge by their free spirit would He force us to choose the Good that He is, or the evil that He is not, as it goes against the design within the truths of creation. I think it a lie of evil against His nature in which He allows men to act freely to say “everything is predetermined”.
JustChristian
New Member
Here's a very different perspective. Since God is by definition outside of what we call space and time, doing something before the beginning of time is, to Him, exactly the same as doing it in the middle or at the end of time. We of course see these actions quite differently but to God they're all the same. Therefore, He could have created a perfect world and humans that could remain sinless if they chose to do so. When Adam and Eve fell it was important to God that He provide a way back into a covenant relationship with Him. He then planned to send His Son into the world to save us from our fallen state. This could have been done from God's perspective after the fall.
In reality, we understand only that part of His nature that He chose to reveal in the Bible and through His Son. His nature largely remains unknown to us.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
In reality, we understand only that part of His nature that He chose to reveal in the Bible and through His Son. His nature largely remains unknown to us.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
BaptistBeliever said:
That's called Infralapsarianism. It doesn't make any sense to me, but there is a name for it.
From: http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/soteriology/supralapsarianism_infralapsarianism.htm
The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:
(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:
(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
.
JustChristian
New Member
Not exactly in my case because I don't believe in limited atonement. Actually, the link you provided pretty well sums up my view in this area.
No major Reformed confession specifically supports the Supra position, but none condemns it. On the main they tend to stay away from stating a clear position and this is understandable for the Bible has no firm statement on the matter and any position taken would be without a solid support.
However, an argument by logical reason can be put forward if we consider the essential attributes of God: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. To God the position of Time e.g. Past, Future is an eternal Now. Therefore to God, in his Omniscience, all things, but ALL, none left out, are known "instantly" without having to wait for the unfolding of time (like it is for us). Thus ALL things were known (decreed) to Him "from" inception, nothing hidden, it follows then that God "knew" very well everything that would come to pass from the beginning to the end, INCLUDING the fall of Adam.
On this basis it would make no sense at all for God to wait for the fall (when He knew it would happen, whether by decree or by Adam's determination) and then formulate a plan of salvation, as an after thought. It seems to me that the Supra view is more coherent with the Supreme Sovereignty of God that the Infra one.
Also some expositors use this phrase "God permit the fall". I strongly object to the word "permit" for it implies that God did not quite like the idea but He could not do otherwise and he "tolerates" it, or that something was imposed onto Him from the outside and He had to concede. To me God is the Absolute Sovereign of ALL things, and ALL things have their being in Him and move by Him and He is not the author of sin for sin is, by definition, transgression to His Law that is not applicable to Him, but to men.
This is an interesting topic but one that is primarily philosophical not Biblical.
No major Reformed confession specifically supports the Supra position, but none condemns it. On the main they tend to stay away from stating a clear position and this is understandable for the Bible has no firm statement on the matter and any position taken would be without a solid support.
However, an argument by logical reason can be put forward if we consider the essential attributes of God: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. To God the position of Time e.g. Past, Future is an eternal Now. Therefore to God, in his Omniscience, all things, but ALL, none left out, are known "instantly" without having to wait for the unfolding of time (like it is for us). Thus ALL things were known (decreed) to Him "from" inception, nothing hidden, it follows then that God "knew" very well everything that would come to pass from the beginning to the end, INCLUDING the fall of Adam.
On this basis it would make no sense at all for God to wait for the fall (when He knew it would happen, whether by decree or by Adam's determination) and then formulate a plan of salvation, as an after thought. It seems to me that the Supra view is more coherent with the Supreme Sovereignty of God that the Infra one.
Also some expositors use this phrase "God permit the fall". I strongly object to the word "permit" for it implies that God did not quite like the idea but He could not do otherwise and he "tolerates" it, or that something was imposed onto Him from the outside and He had to concede. To me God is the Absolute Sovereign of ALL things, and ALL things have their being in Him and move by Him and He is not the author of sin for sin is, by definition, transgression to His Law that is not applicable to Him, but to men.
This is an interesting topic but one that is primarily philosophical not Biblical.
- Status