Do Calvinists believe anyone has free will?

[Luke2427]

Yes, I agree. It really isn't a matter of so much debate, and usually name-calling that I am interested in. I am honestly curious about this question. For now, I must leave for work, but I will check back in on your postings late this afternoon when I return home from work. Have a great day!

If we agree that free will is the ability to do what you want to do then free will is present before and after conversion.

It exists withing the breasts of angels, fallen and holy, and men saved and lost.

When Calvinist writers of old speak against "free will" they are condemning the idea of "libertarian free will" which basically means that man can do good as well as bad and nothing is keeping him from doing the one or the other and that eh can want the one just as well as he can want the other.

This notion they and I and orthodox Christianity and the Scriptures clearly speak against.

If free will means that one can choose good just as well as he can choose evil then God Almighty does not have free will.

It should not mean that. It should mean the ability to do what you want to do.

But here is what the Scriptures teach. God can never WANT to do anything evil. He always wants to do good. So he freely chooses always to do good.

The Scripture also teaches that unregenerate man wants nothing but evil. Evil is defined as that which displeases God. Evil concerns motive. You can do a deed that may benefit another person or it may even benefit a billion people, but the deed be evil because your motive is not toward God. For something to be good it must be for God primarily and for the neighbor secondarily.

So unregenerate man never wants to do anything for God so he never chooses to do anything for God so all he does is evil- BUT he has a free will. He is doing EXACTLY what he wants to do all of the time. God is not forcing him to do anything against his will.

NOW TO YOUR QUESTION:
Regenerate man has a free will too. He can always do what he most wants to do at any given moment if the ability to do so is present (iow, he cannot lift an elephant with his pinky if that is what he most wants to do).

But the regenerate man has two opposing sets of desires. The inner man desires to do that which pleases God but the outer man desires to please self.

The regenerate man freely chooses to do whatever it is he most wants to do at any given moment. If his flesh presents the strongest desire then the regenerate man freely chooses to please his flesh. If his regenerate spirit presents the strongest desire then he freely chooses to please Christ.

If free will is the ability to do whatever one most wants to do then God, all angels and all men have it.

If it is the ability to do good as well as evil at any given moment in spite of any whelming desires- then no being has ever had it.

If it is the former then regenerate man has a free will.

If we agree on this which answers your first question then we can move on to the other questions at your leisure.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well now Snow, since you indicated you have Calvin's Institutes, why dont you read book 2, chapter II....actually II through V are devoted to the question. Of course this is only Calvin's opinion.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't participate in these Cal/Arm discussions, don't plan to and don't want to. But I saw your thread and just wanted to drop in and say something.

Don't be surprised that you haven't gotten an answer yet. You probably won't. I did a grad school paper on this very subject, the Calvinist view of the free will after regeneration, specifically on Rom. 10:14-15. I was able to find no Calvinist sources: none, zilch, nada, nai (the last was Japanese). For that course or another (I forget) I read Warfield (Biblical and Theological Studies, 580 pages) and he didn't have a single word on it. Neither do Strong's Systematic Theology or any other I checked. I have Gill's Body of Divinity--nothing! (P. S. I got an A on the paper.)

Calvinists just don't consider this subject, they don't think about it as you can see on this thread already. I consider it to be a large gap in Calvinist theology.

Really.... have you read Institutes? Hmmmm

 

[webdog]

That's exactly what he was saying. A lion will never want to eat anything other than meat.

Should he be punished for this if he has not choice in the matter? How does the lion "choose" to eat meat? That makes no sense.

So you choose contrary to your nature? That doesn't even make sense

Every time you sin you are going against your new nature, and vice versa.

As far as the definition of "choose" it fits very nicely in. The word choose means that there are options and you "choose" one of them. A lion has options. He can eat meat, or can eat the apple that is on the ground.j Which one will he choose? The meat of course. Not having any desire for something doesn't make it not a available choice.

The lion can do no such choosing. He can eat nothing BUT the meat. There is no real choice involved.

 

[Amy.G]

If we agree that free will is the ability to do what you want to do then free will is present before and after conversion.

Luke, what do you call the ability to go against what you "want" to do and do that which you don't want to do. I was talking about that in my post earlier in the thread. (post #17)

 

[Osage Bluestem]

This really isn't what I'm talking about. What I am curious about is the elected, according to Calvinist doctrine, when they sin. This is obviously not in accordance with their new nature. Was this sin something God ordained, or did the Christian have free will enough to choose to sin, even though they have a new nature?

Chritians are still in the corrupted flesh until physical death when they are fully sanctified. Due to that "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"

Osage,

I hear this often as an argument from my reformed brethren. Define for me what traits make up this "natural nature" of man (that we both believe is in opposition to the commands and principles of God)

The natural man is dead spiritually and his number one trait is selfishness. He doesn't like God the way God really is.

The regenerate man loves God and others.

 

[webdog]

Only a very immature debater would do so.

Terms must be defined before discussion can proceed.

If terms are not defined then positions cannot be pinned down and debate is not possible.

Skandelon recognizes this in another debate and wisely asks for definitions (he is the sharpest non-cal on here imo), but unfortunately I have given them to him repeatedly.

Definitions are a must.

The irony. You have NOT given him the definition of decree. You obfuscate and avoid at all cost...as you have done on this very thread. JoJ asked you a simple question (as Skan has) and you do more gymnastics in answering questions than Mary Lou Retton.

 

[Jim1999]

All life falls under the absolute sovereignty of God. Under this heading, there is a sub-heading called the permissive will of God. This is where the free will of man fits. Man is free to make choices, but subject to the permissive will of God; "thus far and no further..."

The problem with many people is the timeline of events. We tend to forget that God is timeless, but man thinks in terms of time. Hence, we tend to confuse certain doctrines that happen because we must apply a human timeline, when in fact they happen in God's "time".

Cheers,

Jim

 

[annsni]

4. When God converts a sinner,and translates him into a state of grace,He frees him from his natural bondage under sin,and by grace alone He enables him freely to will and do that which is spiritually good. But because of his remaining corruptions he does not only (or perfectly) will that which is good,but also wills that which is evil.
5. The will of man will only be made perfectly and immutably free to will good alone in the state of glory.

Yep - that's what I see in Scripture as well.

 

[Amy.G]

I really think comparing the choices of man to the choices of animals is a huge error. We were created in the image of God. We are not animals and our choices are very different and are moral in nature. An animal has no moral nature or moral decisions to make. We cannot be compared to an animal.

 

[Luke2427]

The irony. You have NOT given him the definition of decree. You obfuscate and avoid at all cost...as you have done on this very thread. JoJ asked you a simple question (as Skan has) and you do more gymnastics in answering questions than Mary Lou Retton.

You ought to consider reading the whole post before you respond to it.

 

[webdog]

You ought to consider reading the whole post before you respond to it.

I did. He (and we) are still waiting.

 

[Luke2427]

I did. He (and we) are still waiting.

I gave you the best definitions knwon to man for decrees.

I believe that if Jesus Christ were to descend to your rooms and share it with you verbally on my behalf you would declare it not to be enough.

 

[webdog]

I gave you the best definitions knwon to man for decrees.

I believe that if Jesus Christ were to descend to your rooms and share it with you verbally on my behalf you would declare it not to be enough.

I believe if He were to do the same to you, you would find a way to squirm and argue your way around it I know what decree means, and based on what you gave, you either don't know or realize the damage it does to your postion.

 

[Luke2427]

I believe if He were to do the same to you, you would find a way to squirm and argue your way around it I know what decree means, and based on what you gave, you either don't know or realize the damage it does to your postion.

You do not NOT know- not at all.

I proved that from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

 

[Amy.G]

All life falls under the absolute sovereignty of God. Under this heading, there is a sub-heading called the permissive will of God. This is where the free will of man fits. Man is free to make choices, but subject to the permissive will of God; "thus far and no further..."

The problem with many people is the timeline of events. We tend to forget that God is timeless, but man thinks in terms of time. Hence, we tend to confuse certain doctrines that happen because we must apply a human timeline, when in fact they happen in God's "time".

Cheers,

Jim

Good post Jim. :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

You do not NOT know- not at all.

I proved that from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

Wow...are you a Seer? I never even gave you my definition.

A decree, quite simply, is an order. See how simple that was? Let's see you try it not using CoF's, but in YOUR own words.

 

[glfredrick]

From my understanding, Calvinists believe that man has no choice in whether or not he is saved. He is either elected by God or he isn't.

Does this apply to a person who has been saved (elected)? After a person becomes a Christian does he have any freewill? That is, if a Christian sins, did he have any choice in the matter or was he destined to do so by God.

The most simple answer is, if you are expecting Calvinists to hold to an utter deterministic God, you are describing the wrong religion. That is the practice of Muslims, not Christians, even staunch Calvinists.

We hold to the same level of free will that the Bible expresses -- not more, nor less -- but we also realize that our free exercise of will CANNOT cause God to do what only God will or can do.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, what do you call the ability to go against what you "want" to do and do that which you don't want to do. I was talking about that in my post earlier in the thread. (post #17)

It's not just about what you "want", it is about what you MOST want to do.

Every person will do what they MOST want to do at any given moment if the ability is there.

If you don't do what you "want" it is because you are doing something else you want to do more.

You may really "want" to eat that piece of cake and not do it. You may think- I did not do what I wanted to do. But you would be mistaken. You did at that moment what you MOST wanted which may have been to avoid the calories. As badly as you desired that cake, your desire to lose weight was greater at that moment.

We always do what we MOST want to do at any given moment unless providentially hindered.

 

[Rippon]

Now, I know that's pretty rough-...

I don't think it is worth it to quote your entire post. I could have flagged this offensive post of yours. I could have sent you a PM about it. But I have decided to post some remarks of my own in public.

Chill man! Why do you get so nasty over ...what? You know it's pretty rough but you proceed to make it even rougher.

I'm a Calvinist,but that doesn't mean that I should give carte blanche to all sorts of mean-spirited stuff. All those unkind remarks you posted are completely unwarranted. Is this subject the hill you want to die on?

You have a difference of opinion with JoJ. It's not like you are warring against rank heresy or something. Let it go please.