Calvinistic Application Part 2

[Thinkingstuff]

I figured with the interest there is on this subject and the things I've learned so far that this was a good discussion though at times off thread.

The major differences begin with Choice. How much is granted to man? Calvinist would say Adam was entirely free to choose and had true free will. Man since that point has not. My definition of Free is unencumbered though the dictionary states:

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another

. That being the case with the view of original sin in mind mankind is encumbered with sin and therefore no longer free or has free will. Which means free will is moot to a Calvinist. Which fits in with their TULIP consept of Total Depravity. So we are elected from before the foundations of the world by God. There is some difference in point of view among Calvinist on whether God is double predestinarian or not. Jarthur holds with Luther on this matter. Where are other on this position?

 

[canadyjd]

The major differences begin with Choice.

Well, I would say the major difference begins with God's sovereignty, not man's choice.

How much is granted to man? Calvinist would say Adam was entirely free to choose and had true free will. Man since that point has not. My definition of Free is unencumbered though the dictionary states:

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.

That being the case with the view of original sin in mind mankind is encumbered with sin and therefore no longer free or has free will. Which means free will is moot to a Calvinist. Which fits in with their TULIP consept of Total Depravity.

Actually, it fits with scripture. Jesus said everyone who sins is a slave to sin. That meets the above definition. No free will.

So we are elected from before the foundations of the world by God.

That is what scripture says.

There is some difference in point of view among Calvinist on whether God is double predestinarian or not. Jarthur holds with Luther on this matter. Where are other on this position?

Does scripture say God predestined everyone else to hell? I don't think it does, but I'm certainly willing to look at any verses you may have in mind.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, I would say the major difference begins with God's sovereignty, not man's choice.

Well, this isn't quite right because non Calvinist would agree that God is entirely sovereign. Maybe the questions lies in how God is Sovereign.

 

[Pastor David]

The Bible teaches both the full, supreme and divine sovereignty of God's will and the full, free and volitional attributes of man's will. Our inability to fully reconcile these as they pertain to redemption should in no way mar the character of God. Rather it only further reflects the extent of man's depravity, and his fallen nature.

For the Calvinist, the question has never been one of whether or not man's will is free to do what it wants. But rather the issue revolves around whether man's fallen will, considered in and of itself, possesses the moral ability to desire anything Godward without the attending assistance of the Holy Spirit. If it is acknowledged, as Calvinist do, that the working of the Holy Spirit must act first in quickening the hearts of men towards God, then it must needs be acknowledged as well that mankind has lost the moral ability to chose the things of God (including his own salvation) apart from sovereign grace.

 

[canadyjd]

The Bible teaches both the full, supreme and divine sovereignty of God's will and the full, free and volitional attributes of man's will.

Jesus said that everyone who sins is a slave to sin. That is scripture and that teaches that everyone's will is enslaved to sin. No free will.

I agree with the rest of what you said, however.

peace to youraying:

 

[Pastor David]

Jesus said that everyone who sins is a slave to sin. That is scripture and that teaches that everyone's will is enslaved to sin. No free will.

I agree with the rest of what you said, however.

peace to youraying:

I think you'll agree with my explanation then of the above:

We are free to chose what we want. The problem of man's will is not its lack of freedom - it is it's depravity of nature. In other words, we only want to sin. Therefore we are free to chose what we want, but all we want is sinful (apart from grace). So yes, in one sense we are free, but only to sin, since our very disposition is bent, if you will, towards sinning. And at the same time, the freedom of will God has allowed us to exercise is the very freedom of will which has led to our bondage in sin.

I hope this helps.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Bible teaches both the full, supreme and divine sovereignty of God's will and the full, free and volitional attributes of man's will. Our inability to fully reconcile these as they pertain to redemption should in no way mar the character of God. Rather it only further reflects the extent of man's depravity, and his fallen nature.

For the Calvinist, the question has never been one of whether or not man's will is free to do what it wants. But rather the issue revolves around whether man's fallen will, considered in and of itself, possesses the moral ability to desire anything Godward without the attending assistance of the Holy Spirit. If it is acknowledged, as Calvinist do, that the working of the Holy Spirit must act first in quickening the hearts of men towards God, then it must needs be acknowledged as well that mankind has lost the moral ability to chose the things of God (including his own salvation) apart from sovereign grace.

Then isn't it the case that man's will is encumbered because it can't consider freely in and of itself the ability or desire of anything Godward? In which case there is no real true will. Much less the implication of freedom.

 

[Pastor David]

Then isn't it the case that man's will is encumbered because it can't consider freely in and of itself the ability or desire of anything Godward? In which case there is no real true will. Much less the implication of freedom.

We must bear in mind man was created upright - with the moral ability to obey or disobey God. God created man with freewill. But after the Fall (man's choice to disobey rather than obey), man's will though it remains free, has radically fallen into such an estate of sin and despair - the Scriptures say it is deseperately wicked - that our predispositions are now wholly inclined towards evil.

It is as a drunkard who has the freedom or liberty to chose not to drink, but has become so ensnared in the bottle that his will is entirely bent towards drinking. In other words, he has lost the ability to cease drinking. Much in the same way, though we once possesed the moral ability in our own will to serve God, we have become so ensnared in sin that our entire disposition now only seeks to serve sin, unless or until God interposes His mercy and grace.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We must bear in mind man was created upright - with the moral ability to obey or disobey God. God created man with freewill. But after the Fall (man's choice to disobey rather than obey), man's will though it remains free, has radically fallen into such an estate of sin and despair - the Scriptures say it is deseperately wicked - that our predispositions are now wholly inclined towards evil.

It is as a drunkard who has the freedom or liberty to chose not to drink, but has become so ensnared in the bottle that his will is entirely bent towards drinking. In other words, he has lost the ability to cease drinking. Much in the same way, though we once possesed the moral ability in our own will to serve God, we have become so ensnared in sin that our entire disposition now only seeks to serve sin, unless or until God interposes His mercy and grace.

Thus he isn't entirely free but encumbered. Alchoholism is a sickness which must be treated. Sin likewise.

 

[Pastor David]

Thus he isn't entirely free but encumbered. Alchoholism is a sickness which must be treated. Sin likewise.

Right. But it isn't from a lack of freedom, understood Biblically, but a disposition wholly given over - in the case of the drunkard, to drinking - in the case of the sinner, to sin. Sinners do what they want to do - sin. They are exercising their freedom. The reason they don't exercise faithfulness to God isn't that they aren't free to do so, but they, in and of themselves, have no desire to do so. Again, the issue is not one of lack of freedom, but depravity of nature. I hope you can see the distinction.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Right. But it isn't from a lack of freedom, understood Biblically, but a disposition wholly given over - in the case of the drunkard, to drinking - in the case of the sinner, to sin. Sinners do what they want to do - sin. They are exercising their freedom. The reason they don't exercise faithfulness to God isn't that they aren't free to do so, but they, in and of themselves, have no desire to do so. Again, the issue is not one of lack of freedom, but depravity of nature. I hope you can see the distinction.

I do see the difference and you make a good point. But nothing can act against its nature. For instance God is good. Its God's intrinsic nature to be good. God does not and cannot act otherwise. Thus "let no man say he is tempted of God" Because its contrary to his nature to do evil. If our nature is totally depraved what choice is there? We cannot act outside our nature not even conceive of it. Our nature thus encumbers our will which governs our freedom to think and act.

 

[Pastor David]

I do see the difference and you make a good point. But nothing can act against its nature. For instance God is good. Its God's intrinsic nature to be good. God does not and cannot act otherwise. Thus "let no man say he is tempted of God" Because its contrary to his nature to do evil. If our nature is totally depraved what choice is there? We cannot act outside our nature not even conceive of it. Our nature thus encumbers our will which governs our freedom to think and act.

In this response you actually anticipate my next premise. Simply because we cannot act outside the realm of our own nature does not mean we're not free. The capability to act within our nature is the very definition of freedom! Like you mention, God's nature prohibits Him from sinning. Contra man, who in and of himself can do nothing but sin, God in His nature can do nothing but good. Therefore just as we do not suggest God is not free simply because He acts only according to His own nature, we should not suggest man is not free simply because he acts merely according to his. As a result, we don't negate the presence of freedom in man or God, rather we establish it!

 

[canadyjd]

In this response you actually anticipate my next premise. Simply because we cannot act outside the realm of our own nature does not mean we're not free. The capability to act within our nature is the very definition of freedom! Like you mention, God's nature prohibits Him from sinning. Contra man, who in and of himself can do nothing but sin, God in His nature can do nothing but good. Therefore just as we do not suggest God is not free simply because He acts only according to His own nature, we should not suggest man is not free simply because he acts merely according to his. As a result, we don't negate the presence of freedom in man or God, rather we establish it!

We cannot ignore what Jesus said. He said that everyone who sins is the slave of sin.

Now, a slave does the will of the master, not his own will. This is exactly Paul's point in Romans 7 when he explains how sin rules an unbeliever, even when they want to act contrary to their sinful desires.

The human will is not free. It is in bondage to sin.

peace to youraying:

 

[Me4Him]

Now, a slave does the will of the master, not his own will. This is exactly Paul's point in Romans 7 when he explains how sin rules an unbeliever, even when they want to act contrary to their sinful desires.

The human will is not free. It is in bondage to sin.

peace to youraying:

Good point,

But, as you pointed out, man recognizes "Good/Evil", and has the capacity to "CHOSE" between the two, we see evident of that in the world.

Some attempt to live a Moral life, while others chose an immoral life,

and each person is free to chose according to their "WILL".

Why would it be impossible for a person to chose to live the life of a "Christian" vs remaining a "sinner????

Would God fail to save someone who wanted to be a Christian, and would he save someone who didn't??

Man had the ability to "YIELD" his life to either God or Satan,

and God's salvation plan covered as many as were made sinners by Adam/Satan,

God's not willing any perish, but many do, obviously, God's will is not the deciding factor.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

 

[canadyjd]

But, as you pointed out, man recognizes "Good/Evil", and has the capacity to "CHOSE" between the two, we see evident of that in the world.

Well, I didn't say that man had the capacity to "chose" between good/evil...I said the opposite.

Some attempt to live a Moral life, while others chose an immoral life,and each person is free to chose according to their "WILL".

Everyone chooses an immoral life, even if they don't recognize it for what it is. Every life without God as its focus is an immoral life.

Why would it be impossible for a person to chose to live the life of a "Christian" vs remaining a "sinner????

Because it doesn't depend upon the man who "wills" but on God who has mercy.

No one can "choose" to have Holy Spirit convict them of sin. That happens according to the will of God.

No one can "choose" to have Holy Spirit convict them of the truth of the gospel. That happens according to the will of God.

No one can "choose" to have Holy Spirit indwell, that is the gift of God and happens according to His will.

Would God fail to save someone who wanted to be a Christian, and would he save someone who didn't??

No one wants to unless Holy Spirit draws them.

God's not willing any perish, but many do, obviously, God's will is not the deciding factor.

It is exactly because of God's will that some do not perish.

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

Jesus said that everyone who sins is a slave to sin. That is scripture and that teaches that everyone's will is enslaved to sin. No free will.

I agree with the rest of what you said, however.

peace to youraying:

...which goes against Romans 1, where the Truth was indeed rejected freely by the reprobate.

 

[webdog]

We cannot ignore what Jesus said. He said that everyone who sins is the slave of sin.

Now, a slave does the will of the master, not his own will. This is exactly Paul's point in Romans 7 when he explains how sin rules an unbeliever, even when they want to act contrary to their sinful desires.

The human will is not free. It is in bondage to sin.

peace to youraying:

Believers sin, and Paul himself said that he doesn't do the things he should, and does the very things he hates. The slave analogy is taken too far, IMO.

 

[Me4Him]

Well, I didn't say that man had the capacity to "chose" between good/evil...I said the opposite. Everyone chooses an immoral life, even if they don't recognize it for what it is. Every life without God as its focus is an immoral life. Because it doesn't depend upon the man who "wills" but on God who has mercy.

One of the "common threads" I've noticed is that most who believe Calvin, have a tendance to "combine" several doctrines under one heading.

An example, men are born in sin, totally depraved, body and soul.

That's not true, "ALL" men are born in a body of flesh/sin that is condemned to die from birth, but the soul isn't condemned with the flesh.

The depravity of the flesh and of the soul are two different subjects/doctrines altogether, they can't be combined/explained under one heading.

No one can "choose" to have Holy Spirit convict them of sin. That happens according to the will of God.

No one can "choose" to have Holy Spirit convict them of the truth of the gospel. That happens according to the will of God.

No one can "choose" to have Holy Spirit indwell, that is the gift of God and happens according to His will.No one wants to unless Holy Spirit draws them.It is exactly because of God's will that some do not perish.

peace to youraying:

Here again, you're attempting to combine several doctrine under one "Heading".

Many say "Lord Lord" who have a "will" to be saved but are not, and you're are saying that is not possible.

How can man have a will to be saved, but God still won't save them, especially after saying it's not his will for them to perish???

Calvin's doctrine, at least as understood/explained to me by most believers, use a "broad brush" to paint a picture of scripture/plan of salvation, which covers over the "finer details",

Flesh/soul can't be combined under the same heading of depraved, Flesh has no choice, the soul does.

Neither can "God's will" none perish refuse to save one who has a will to be saved, unless they refuse to "submit" to God.

Here's the point, "Man's will" can be the same as God's will according to the laws of Morality, and without man being saved or God's involvement.

Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally Posted by canadyjd
Jesus said that everyone who sins is a slave to sin. That is scripture and that teaches that everyone's will is enslaved to sin. No free will.

Wed replies..

...which goes against Romans 1, where the Truth was indeed rejected freely by the reprobate.

No I think that proves it.

As Paul says in Romans 1:1..

Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God,

In contrast to being a slave to sin.

Ad you must be reminded again that this is common grace, in creation that is rejected.

Romans 1...

19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.

20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;

21for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools

23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

In verse 21..."they knew God" is talking about creation, just as the whole context.


Verse 25 sums it up..

They exchanged the truth of God (in creation) for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Its pretty clear.

 

[Pastor David]

We cannot ignore what Jesus said. He said that everyone who sins is the slave of sin.

Now, a slave does the will of the master, not his own will. This is exactly Paul's point in Romans 7 when he explains how sin rules an unbeliever, even when they want to act contrary to their sinful desires.

The human will is not free. It is in bondage to sin.

peace to youraying:

Paul's point here in Romans 7 and in chapter 1 is exactly that - the human will is fallen into sin, and in serving sin man is exercising his own will, satisfying his own inclinations - he's doing exactly what he wants to do. He has no desire to do otherwise. In other words, being in bondage to sin is where man has chosen to reside. We are comfortable there. Until the grace of God moves upon the heart of a sinner, he will remain utterly indisposed to sin, and adverse to the things of God.