Can Predestination and Free Will Coexist?

[Silverhair]

Gods predetermined will is the cause of their actions. God determined that lucifer would of his own voluntary will fall before creation and to be successful in causing Adam and Eve to Transgress. All actions of the creatures, though voluntary, were yet governed by the first cause of all things,The Sovereign will of God

You say God is the first cause of all things and since no one can overthrow God then logically God is responsible for all that happens. That of course would include the rebellion of satan and all of mans sins.

Your determinism is the downfall of your Calvinism.

 

[JonC]

You say God is the first cause of all things and since no one can overthrow God then logically God is responsible for all that happens. That of course would include the rebellion of satan and all of mans sins.

Your determinism is the downfall of your Calvinism.

This was the conclusion of many Calvinists in the late 16th Century (and this sect, which was considered orthodox but extreme Calvinism was later expelled from Calvinism).

The problem is Scripture states that God is not the Author of sin and that God is not the Author of confusion. Yet both exist.

This is one weakness of Calvinism. Many Calvinists state that God is the ultimate author of sin, of Satan and human rebellion, of everything that occurs or He is not sovereign. This means Scripture is wrong or their understanding is wrong.

I am not sure, however, that all Calvinists believe that God is the ultimate author or cause of sin.

 

[Silverhair]

This was the conclusion of many Calvinists in the late 16th Century (and this sect, which was considered orthodox but extreme Calvinism was later expelled from Calvinism).

The problem is Scripture states that God is not the Author of sin and that God is not the Author of confusion. Yet both exist.

This is one weakness of Calvinism. Many Calvinists state that God is the ultimate author of sin, of Satan and human rebellion, of everything that occurs or He is not sovereign. This means Scripture is wrong or their understanding is wrong.

I am not sure, however, that all Calvinists believe that God is the ultimate author or cause of sin.

What I have seen on this board and others is that people will call themselves a Calvinist and yet deny much of what is Calvinism. Some will say they do not hold to determinism and yet hold to the DoG/TULIP or even just parts of it, strange to say the least.

The one consistent is that they deny mans free will to trust in Christ.

 

[JonC]

What I have seen on this board and others is that people will call themselves a Calvinist and yet deny much of what is Calvinism. Some will say they do not hold to determinism and yet hold to the DoG/TULIP or even just parts of it, strange to say the least.

The one consistent is that they deny mans free will to trust in Christ.

There are different "flavors" to Calvinism.

Spurgeon, for example, would not be a Calvinist at all when some standards expressed here is applied. But James Arminius would when the standard of other Calvinists are applied.

To be fair, Calvinism as we think of it originated just as much with Beza (he, not Calvin, placed salvation under the category of Divine Sovereignty).

That said, I agree with you. It is very strange as Calvinism as we know it is determinism by "decree". And TULIP is very percise based on Calvinistic Atonement and divine decree.


The issue with free will is really a non-issue. Free will is simply men making choices. Calvinism takes free will to mean libertarian free will, but even free will theologians reject that type of free will.

That debate is simply low hanging fruit where men enjoy arguing against one another while secretly knowing they are talking past one another.

 

[Brightfame52]

You say God is the first cause of all things and since no one can overthrow God then logically God is responsible for all that happens. That of course would include the rebellion of satan and all of mans sins.

Your determinism is the downfall of your Calvinism.

Here is what I said:

Gods predetermined will is the cause of their actions. God determined that lucifer would of his own voluntary will fall before creation and to be successful in causing Adam and Eve to Transgress. All actions of the creatures, though voluntary, were yet governed by the first cause of all things,The Sovereign will of God

 

[37818]

. . . . lucifer would of his own voluntary will fall before creation . . . .

Before creation?

 

[Silverhair]

Here is what I said:

Gods predetermined will is the cause of their actions. God determined that lucifer would of his own voluntary will fall before creation and to be successful in causing Adam and Eve to Transgress. All actions of the creatures, though voluntary, were yet governed by the first cause of all things,The Sovereign will of God

I know what you said and you ignore the implication of what you said. Effectively you want God to be the first cause of all things but not be responsible for being the first cause of all things.

Your view is illogical but it is Calvinist.

 

[Brightfame52]

This we know, God is absolutely Sovereign over all, to include the wills of men, and we know that God holds men accountable for his evil deeds.

 

[Silverhair]

This we know, God is absolutely Sovereign over all, to include the wills of men, and we know that God holds men accountable for his evil deeds.

Your view is unbiblical at it's core. The fact you can not see how illogical your view is says a great deal about you.

You are trusting in what some man has told you rather than the Holy word of God.

You are putting forward the idea of Divine Meticulous Determinism.

What is it that keeps us from seeing and savouring the Christ of all saving grace?

If you're a consistent Calvinist it's God. God is keeping you from seeing God and yet you're held responsible for not seeing God.

The Calvinist version of God, as some would put it, is "totally absolutely 100% sovereign" so anything that happens or does not happen, He determines. So how or why is the man that rejects God held responsible for doing so as he is actually doing exactly what God has determined for him to do.

Answer this BF
Is it possible, for God to create a creature that He Himself does not determine? In other words is it possible for God to create a truly free creature, a creature where He Himself does not determine the decisions of that creature.
You would have to logically say, NO.
But if you do say NO He cannot then you are denying the sovereignty of God.

The bible shows us that God has given man a free will and will hold them responsible for the choices they make and yet He is still sovereign.

 

[Brightfame52]

@Silverhair

your view is unbiblical at it's core.

Its biblical but you dont receive it.

 

[atpollard]

The question, then, becomes whether God decreed human actions by denying man of free-will. But this question Iis related to knowing the mind of God beyond what God has revealed of Himself to man, and therefore invalid as far as theology (the best peoole can do is speculate by relying on their own understanding).

Of course, the actual definition of "FREE WILL" must also come into play since some define "FREE" to mean "not an automaton" and others define "FREE" to mean "without the influence of sin" ... that's a LOT of ground between those two definitions.

I do not believe that people are ROBOTS.
I do not believe that people are untainted by a SIN-NATURE.
Therefore, I believe that we are both FREE and NOT FREE within the range of possible definitions.

We are FREE to follow our NATURES ... the leopard cannot change its spots, but is free to be a leopard and make leopard choices.

 

[JonC]

Of course, the actual definition of "FREE WILL" must also come into play since some define "FREE" to mean "not an automaton" and others define "FREE" to mean "without the influence of sin" ... that's a LOT of ground between those two definitions.

I do not believe that people are ROBOTS.
I do not believe that people are untainted by a SIN-NATURE.
Therefore, I believe that we are both FREE and NOT FREE within the range of possible definitions.

We are FREE to follow our NATURES ... the leopard cannot change its spots, but is free to be a leopard and make leopard choices.

The actual definition of freewill is "voluntary choice or decision" or the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention".

What you are talking about is libertarian freewill (that human "choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God").


This is an area where Calvinists are very often dishonest. They say "freewill" but mean "libertarian freewill" without acknowledging that libertarian freewill is a theoretical term rejected by most regardless of religious affiliation.


We can't simply take free will, seperate the words from the term and assume "free" means "free from anything, including human nature". The reason is "free will" already has a definition which includes what the will is free from.


Free will doesn't mean free from all influences like human nature, sin, training, indoctrination, culture, tradition, etc.

Libertarian free will does, but not free will itself.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair


Its biblical but you dont receive it.

You show that your view is vapid when you do nor even try to answer the question BF.

Answer this BF
Is it possible, for God to create a creature that He Himself does not determine? In other words is it possible for God to create a truly free creature, a creature where He Himself does not determine the decisions of that creature.
You would have to logically say, NO.
But if you do say NO He cannot then you are denying the sovereignty of God.
Are you going to deny the sovereignty of God BF?

The bible shows us that God has given man a free will and will hold them responsible for the choices they make and yet He is still sovereign.

You can continue to hold to your philosophical view but you will be denying the truth of scripture.

 

[atpollard]

The actual definition of freewill is "voluntary choice or decision" or the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention".

What you are talking about is libertarian freewill (that human "choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God").


This is an area where Calvinists are very often dishonest. They say "freewill" but mean "libertarian freewill" without acknowledging that libertarian freewill is a theoretical term rejected by most regardless of religious affiliation.


We can't simply take free will, seperate the words from the term and assume "free" means "free from anything, including human nature". The reason is "free will" already has a definition which includes what the will is free from.


Free will doesn't mean free from all influences like human nature, sin, training, indoctrination, culture, tradition, etc.

Libertarian free will does, but not free will itself.

You are also being disingenuous.
I have certainly seen Calvinist debaters define any opposition to their position as "Libertine free will".
You MUST have noticed Arminian debaters that define any opposition to their position as "mindless robots".

Take your thumb off the scale, please.

Can you provide an authoritative, neutral source that defines: "free will"?
[Personally, I have trouble locating just a NEUTRAL SOURCE ... let alone one that can be trusted as authoritative vs "just somebody's opinion in a blog"].

You said free will is "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention". As an former atheist, if we discount God, what is a human decision "not determined by prior causes" ... what is a human "first cause" (apriori) decision? Philosophically, such a thing does not exist. Even GENETICS influences HOW we think, so it starts at conception.

 

[Silverhair]

Of course, the actual definition of "FREE WILL" must also come into play since some define "FREE" to mean "not an automaton" and others define "FREE" to mean "without the influence of sin" ... that's a LOT of ground between those two definitions.

I do not believe that people are ROBOTS.
I do not believe that people are untainted by a SIN-NATURE.
Therefore, I believe that we are both FREE and NOT FREE within the range of possible definitions.

We are FREE to follow our NATURES ... the leopard cannot change its spots, but is free to be a leopard and make leopard choices.

You are confusing animal instinct with human nature. God has given man the ability to make choices, free will.

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). This does not require the person to be able to choose anything, nor does it require the absence of other influencing factors. It only requires the ability for a person confronted with a decision to be able to choose from among one or more possible options.

You can not even deny that man has a free will without proving man has a free will. The verb form of "will" is found 216 times in the NT. All are in the active voice, which represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action.

The fact remains that the ability of choice is part of being a person. That ability of choice we call will. In his totality, man is a thinking, feeling, acting being. He thinks with his mind, feels with his heart, and acts with his will.

 

[atpollard]

You are confusing animal instinct with human nature. God has given man the ability to make choices, free will.

You have set the bar VERY LOW for "free will" at "the ability to make choices".
When Pebbles, our Rottweiler, made the choice to "heel" or to "chase the squirrel", was she demonstrating her God given Free Will just like a person?
Could you explain how that is different from my claim "Free will" means we are not an "automaton" (Robot)?

 

[atpollard]

Here is a question designed to probe for the "guardrails" on the FREE WILL:

Does a person have "the ability to make the choice" to live a sinless life?
[WHY or WHY NOT?]

 

[37818]

Does a person have "the ability to make the choice" to live a sinless life?
[WHY or WHY NOT?]

It seems to be not.
Romans 7:1-25.
1 John 1:6-10 to 1 John 2:1-2.

 

[JonC]

You are also being disingenuous.
I have certainly seen Calvinist debaters define any opposition to their position as "Libertine free will".
You MUST have noticed Arminian debaters that define any opposition to their position as "mindless robots".

Take your thumb off the scale, please.

Can you provide an authoritative, neutral source that defines: "free will"?
[Personally, I have trouble locating just a NEUTRAL SOURCE ... let alone one that can be trusted as authoritative vs "just somebody's opinion in a blog"].

You said free will is "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention". As an former atheist, if we discount God, what is a human decision "not determined by prior causes" ... what is a human "first cause" (apriori) decision? Philosophically, such a thing does not exist. Even GENETICS influences HOW we think, so it starts at conception.

No thumb on the scale.

I realize that many Calvinists identify free-will as libertarian free-will.

BUT in debates on this forum many Calvinists have also argued that the free-will Christian is wrong because free-will does not exist (with the opposing party never suggesting libertarian freewill).

That is dishonesty.

I have also never claimed that all of those who oppose Calvinism on this issue do so honestly.

Your mistake is in suggesting a bias when some Calvinists are called out because some of their opponents are not called out when my entire point on this thread was that "free-will" needed to be defined (are we talking about free-will or libertarian freewill?).

People are talking past one another, and I believe intentionally.


An example would be you defining "free will" as libertarian free will. It isn't. And from your posts you know that these are different concepts.

 

[Silverhair]

You have set the bar VERY LOW for "free will" at "the ability to make choices".
When Pebbles, our Rottweiler, made the choice to "heel" or to "chase the squirrel", was she demonstrating her God given Free Will just like a person?
Could you explain how that is different from my claim "Free will" means we are not an "automaton" (Robot)?

You are now being just plain silly. If you do not understand the difference between your dog following your command or acting on instinct and a human making a choice between various options then there is not much hope for you to understand human free will.

The fact remains that the ability of choice is part of being a person. That ability of choice we call will. In his totality, man is a thinking, feeling, acting being.

Even the fact that you are making your silly argument is proof of free will or that you do not in reality have the ability of an independent thought as it has all been determined in advance what you will think and say.