Dominion vs determinism 2

[Ascetic X]

That I think is the real point of contention. Does man have the innate ability to recognize and "see" the value of the choice of life or death that is put before him? Can he naturally desire to even look into these things. Or, does he tend to consider it foolishness.

Obviously, God believes that people can see the value of the choice of life or death. He would not tell them to choose life if they were unable to make choices.

Deuteronomy 30:19

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live,

 

[DaveXR650]

We can have multiple contradictory wills within us.

Yes.

We may really want to eat another piece of cake. But as we consider our goal to lose weight, we divert our will to eat and change it to the will to lose weight and not eat the cake.

And this is a great example. My point is that while I agree that "you could have chosen otherwise" is an example of being free, I say, no matter what the complications and pulling from multiple directions - your decision at that time was indeed the only choice that you could have made that was truly your own actual free will choice. As humans, we evaluate and reflect on our choices, and realize we could have or should have made other choices - but the fact still remains that the choice we did make, if it was our own choice, was our choice. To have done something else would have to have involved our will being different, which it was not at the time. So the real work is on our will itself. Yet if a Calvinist says so it somehow causes consternation.

 

[DaveXR650]

Obviously, God believes that people can see the value of the choice of life or death. He would not tell them to choose life if they were unable to make choices.

Deuteronomy 30:19

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live,

My own personal belief on this is that you are right in that we should be able to see that and thus are guilty if we don't. But it also seems that God, through a multitude of things, acts to enlighten us and enable us and change us so that some actually do get saved. The more of that we receive the more we are guilty if we don't respond. Where I do depart from Calvinism is if they say that God prevents or doesn't desire that some come to repentance and has created some for the express purpose of damnation. So I guess I would say God provides "effectual" grace to those of us who are saved and this is decisive for our salvation. I don't call it "irresistible" because it is resisted, and the best Calvinists warn not to resist it. I guess in a way it was irresistible for those of us who are saved, if it was decisive and necessary and we did not successfully resist it?

 

[Ben1445]

Greetings to all my brothers in Christ. A savior is risen!

I prefer words like submit (Jam 4:7) or resist (Acts 7:51, Rom 13:2, 2tim 3:8) and accept (Num 14:11) or reject (Mark 7:9, Acts 13:46 1Thes 4:8). More than words like free-will, choice or choose. To me the words like "submit" from scripture would seem to have more of a...God made the first move tone (which I'm assuming we all agree He did).

Although we do see the word "choose" in verses liken Deuteronomy 30:19...

However, it presents the word "choose" within the context of God doing something first,i.e., presenting them with a choice of life or death. So I think my point is the same.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure

I don’t think anyone should disagree with this statement.

The difference of opinion that seem to be the issue is who has been given the option to submit or resist.

I don’t see anyone who has not been given the responsibility of accepting or rejecting. They are all without excuse.

Choose you this day whom you will serve.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I agree that God has done everything first.
We may not choose to go to some other planet that God has not made. We may not choose to live with or without gravity.
We may not choose to not be children of Adam.
We have a risen Saviour Who is the propitiation for sin.
We have the power given to each of us to accept or reject the only Saviour.

 

[Ben1445]

My own personal belief on this is that you are right in that we should be able to see that and thus are guilty if we don't. But it also seems that God, through a multitude of things, acts to enlighten us and enable us and change us so that some actually do get saved. The more of that we receive the more we are guilty if we don't respond. Where I do depart from Calvinism is if they say that God prevents or doesn't desire that some come to repentance and has created some for the express purpose of damnation. So I guess I would say God provides "effectual" grace to those of us who are saved and this is decisive for our salvation. I don't call it "irresistible" because it is resisted, and the best Calvinists warn not to resist it. I guess in a way it was irresistible for those of us who are saved, if it was decisive and necessary and we did not successfully resist it?

I was with you till you started guessing.
The biggest problem for Calvinism is exactly what you have said, irresistible grace is resisted. That God desires that some people perish is not in line with what God says of Himself; that He is not willing that any should perish.

 

[Silverhair]

You are proving my point. If I can affect your free will and change what you desire then I can say that I changed your will without violating your freedom or coercing you. If my will currently is that the things regarding God are not important, the gospel is foolishness, and Christ is of no practical value - then what needs to change is my very will. And that's what Calvinism says. The problem is your will. What you guys are demanding is not just that you be free of outside coercion. I agree with that. But you are demanding that your current free will is somehow able, before a work of God's Spirit upon that will, to change so to speak in a desirable way. Now here's the key point. I will concede to you that unless there is some innate responsibility on the part of each of us, to at some point respond or reject the influences of God - then he cannot truly find us guilty of not doing so. Now where you misunderstand Calvinism is that you are not understanding that the inability they speak of is because of your will which you hold in such high esteem. If the reason for you inability is because of your own will then the Calvinists are right and you certainly can be held guilty and accountable. I am already conceding that I go further and say that while this is true, it is also true that God is giving some light, and the gospel message itself gives some light - in total, I believe that though we rightfully start out guilty, those who don't come to Christ are guilty of not only starting out with a defective will - but are guilty of rejecting grace and drawing, some of which is given to all men. So that, when J.C. Ryle, and even John Owen, say that a man who finds himself lost he can look back and see that he rejected what light he had and is thus truly guilty, they mean it.

To really understand this is difficult and I don't find the Calvinistic explanation completely satisfactory. Neither do I find the Provisionists adequate either. Our natural free will defective and if you come to Christ it will be because something has been done supernaturally to your wonderful, sovereign, free will. I'm sorry, but that is the truth. Arminius would have agreed with that as did Grantham, the Baptist founder, and they said so.

So, far from being illogical, a true change must involve your own will. A loser in a war who agrees to surrender, or a victim who on threat of death, gives up his money - there has been no change in his personal will at all. He has indeed been coerced. He will hate what he did and the one who made him do it all the more because his will was not internally affected at all. In my readings of Calvinism, they are the ones who think these things through and try to explain them. And it's not really necessary that you do so, but if you simply dismiss it then I guess there is no more to discuss.

To quote you Dave "But you are demanding that your current free will is somehow able, before a work of God's Spirit upon that will, to change so to speak in a desirable way."

Dave that is not a accurate comment, actually it just shows that you have not understood what free will actually is.

How many times must I say that God uses various means to draw us to Him before you finally get it? One of those means is conviction of our sins. Where I see your error is that you think God has to change man so that he can actually believe. But then you have to give a good reason for why God did not change all men.

Calvinism has made it so that God is responsible for all those that do not trust as He has not changed the person's attitude toward Him. So if they have to wait for God to do that then why does God judge them for not doing it?

Calvinism does not have a good answer for the problem that they have created.

 

[DaveXR650]

I don’t see anyone who has not been given the responsibility of accepting or rejecting. They are all without excuse.

The Calvinist idea of inability is best described by one of my favorite Calvinists, Horatius Bonar:
"Remember that what you call your inability, God calls your guilt; and that inability is a willful thing. It was not put into you by God; for he made you with the full power of doing everything he tells you to do. You disobey and disbelieve willingly. No one forces you to do either. Your rejection of Christ is the free and deliberate choice of your own free will."

I don't know. Would you and @Silverhair have a problem with the description above of our "inability"? It was a quote by an actual respected Calvinist, later than the Puritans, more around the time of Spurgeon.

To quote you Dave "But you are demanding that your current free will is somehow able, before a work of God's Spirit upon that will, to change so to speak in a desirable way."

Dave that is not a accurate comment, actually it just shows that you have not understood what free will actually is.

When I say that, I say it in view of the definition of inability as put forth by Bonar above. So in other words, I am saying that a work of the Spirit is necessary on our will because our will and thus our choice is not to regard Christ and God's commands. Your will is the problem, but it is your own true will and your own true guilt. God did nothing to you to cause this. I am already agreeing with you on your free and natural will. I am only saying that my (and the Calvinists) description of your own sovereign free will is the accurate one. Now I admit, that I read as much Calvinist literature as anyone and look, I fully understand how based on what some people say it appears the Calvinist position is that God had deliberately fixed us so we are functionally unable to respond to the gospel and then they insist we are still guilty of not responding. I don't believe that either.

 

[Silverhair]

Dave you wrote "Now where you misunderstand Calvinism is that you are not understanding that the inability they speak of is because of your will which you hold in such high esteem. If the reason for you inability is because of your own will then the Calvinists are right and you certainly can be held guilty and accountable."

And this would be true if it were not for calvinist determinism. Man, according to calvinism, does not have a free will at any point. They can only do as God has determined for them to do. See the TULI of TULIP is there any free will in those?

The bible is clear that man has an actual free will, the ability to choose.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes.

And this is a great example. My point is that while I agree that "you could have chosen otherwise" is an example of being free, I say, no matter what the complications and pulling from multiple directions - your decision at that time was indeed the only choice that you could have made that was truly your own actual free will choice. As humans, we evaluate and reflect on our choices, and realize we could have or should have made other choices - but the fact still remains that the choice we did make, if it was our own choice, was our choice. To have done something else would have to have involved our will being different, which it was not at the time. So the real work is on our will itself. Yet if a Calvinist says so it somehow causes consternation.

Dave what causes consternation is the fact that calvinism says man does not have a free will and the use of their TULI of TULIP shows this in clear text.

 

[Psalty]

See. Here's where I don't think you guys are really thinking this through. You simply cannot have chosen otherwise, if your choice was really according to your own will. Think this through. If your choice was what you willed then to "choose otherwise" would have to have not been your will. Or your will itself would have had to change first.

I couldnt disagree more, and I think its because you havent thought deep enough about the nature of human will.

Human “will” allows humans to change their minds. That is part of what a will is. This is the difference with humans having a mind and soul.

1. Human could choose cup A or cup B full of water. Up to them. They could choose either or, they could chose B.

2. Humans make moral choices all the time. Sometimes they are faced with the wrong choice multiple times in a row, lets say a sin like watching porn. That person choses to not watch the first time. The next time they do watch; they could have chosen otherwise, as demonstrated by the first choice.

3. In Romans 7 Paul describes not doing what he wants to. Your definition means that he actually is doing what he wants, a complete contradiction of scripture.

4. To your last sentence “your will would have to change first”. Yes, exactly. How you build your life in choices both big and small affects your ability to respond in a godly way. This is why people are not born with Total Inability but can choose sin and harden their heart. Its why God often choses hardened people for His righteous purposes, even hardening them further in their wicked resolve. Harden simply means to strengthen. And He can even make good come from evil.

 

[Ben1445]

The Calvinist idea of inability is best described by one of my favorite Calvinists, Horatius Bonar:
"Remember that what you call your inability, God calls your guilt; and that inability is a willful thing. It was not put into you by God; for he made you with the full power of doing everything he tells you to do. You disobey and disbelieve willingly. No one forces you to do either. Your rejection of Christ is the free and deliberate choice of your own free will."

I don't know. Would you and @Silverhair have a problem with the description above of our "inability"? It was a quote by an actual respected Calvinist, later than the Puritans, more around the time of Spurgeon.

When I say that, I say it in view of the definition of inability as put forth by Bonar above. So in other words, I am saying that a work of the Spirit is necessary on our will because our will and thus our choice is not to regard Christ and God's commands. Your will is the problem, but it is your own true will and your own true guilt. God did nothing to you to cause this. I am already agreeing with you on your free and natural will. I am only saying that my (and the Calvinists) description of your own sovereign free will is the accurate one. Now I admit, that I read as much Calvinist literature as anyone and look, I fully understand how based on what some people say it appears the Calvinist position is that God had deliberately fixed us so we are functionally unable to respond to the gospel and then they insist we are still guilty of not responding. I don't believe that either.

It’s one of those questions that I feel ends up being a “what did you mean by that” sort of question.
On the face of it, it sounds entertainable.
I’m not sure how guilt and inability are the same thing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Obviously, God believes that people can see the value of the choice of life or death. He would not tell them to choose life if they were unable to make choices.

Deuteronomy 30:19

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live,

Deuteronomy 31:16ff. 'And the LORD said to Moses: "Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger will be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them.........etc.'

 

[Ben1445]

Horatius Bonar:
"Remember that what you call your inability, God calls your guilt; and that inability is a willful thing. It was not put into you by God; for he made you with the full power of doing everything he tells you to do. You disobey and disbelieve willingly. No one forces you to do either. Your rejection of Christ is the free and deliberate choice of your own free will."

It sounds like he is addressing a teaching of his day. Spurgeon did this also.
Spurgeon doesn’t measure up to the Calvinist standard held by many. He is quoted out of convenience. It doesn’t seem to matter that he called people to repent and that he saw the blood of Jesus Christ as effective to save any and all sinners.

 

[Psalty]

Deuteronomy 31:16ff. 'And the LORD said to Moses: "Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger will be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them.........etc.'

Keep going to see how Paul interprets Deut 30!

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”⁠—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
— Romans 10:8-10

This is the same section of choosing from Deut 30.

 

[DaveXR650]

Human “will” allows humans to change their minds. That is part of what a will is. This is the difference with humans having a mind and soul.

This is what we have to get straight or we will continue to talk past each other. (Everyone. I don't mean in any way to pick on you personally as your point is well taken.) I might be wrong and if I am show me where, but in Calvinist theology no one ever is claiming that we are unable to do what we most want to do. That's free will. And you are totally correct in you assessment of our wills as being changeable, malleable, and fickle. All I am saying is that even when confronted with multiple factors, along with various temptations, along with circumstances and opportunities and so on, the choice you make at that time, because it is the choice you finally decided upon - is the choice you had to make in order for it to be the result of your true free will. When you guys raise the objection that you could have done something different, that is not the issue. All that does is point out that you are actually guilty of what you did choose - if it really was your free choice. Had you done something different, well good, but the only thing that could have caused that would have been that you willed something different. I know it sounds weird, but just think about it for a minute and you will realize that without understanding this we will argue indefinitely over something that in principle we probably actually agree on.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Dave what causes consternation is the fact that calvinism says man does not have a free will and the use of their TULI of TULIP shows this in clear text.

2nd [Particular] Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689 IX:1. God hath endued the Will of Man with that natural liberty, and power of acting upon choice; that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
[Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19] The Westminster and Savoy Confessions are similar.

 

[Silverhair]

The Calvinist idea of inability is best described by one of my favorite Calvinists, Horatius Bonar:
"Remember that what you call your inability, God calls your guilt; and that inability is a willful thing. It was not put into you by God; for he made you with the full power of doing everything he tells you to do. You disobey and disbelieve willingly. No one forces you to do either. Your rejection of Christ is the free and deliberate choice of your own free will."

I don't know. Would you and @Silverhair have a problem with the description above of our "inability"? It was a quote by an actual respected Calvinist, later than the Puritans, more around the time of Spurgeon.

When I say that, I say it in view of the definition of inability as put forth by Bonar above. So in other words, I am saying that a work of the Spirit is necessary on our will because our will and thus our choice is not to regard Christ and God's commands. Your will is the problem, but it is your own true will and your own true guilt. God did nothing to you to cause this. I am already agreeing with you on your free and natural will. I am only saying that my (and the Calvinists) description of your own sovereign free will is the accurate one. Now I admit, that I read as much Calvinist literature as anyone and look, I fully understand how based on what some people say it appears the Calvinist position is that God had deliberately fixed us so we are functionally unable to respond to the gospel and then they insist we are still guilty of not responding. I don't believe that either.

Bonar's comment leaves a few questions, how can inability be willful? If one is unable to do something the will/ability to do otherwise is not an option.

Even when he said "You disobey and disbelieve willingly." That requires the ability to choose not inability.

Another comment "No one forces you to do either." flies in the face of calvinist divine determinism.

Calvinist determinism and free will, the ability to choose otherwise, are not compatible.

Whether you hold to divine determinism or the DoG/TULIP we see that man does not have the ability to choose otherwise.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It sounds like he is addressing a teaching of his day. Spurgeon did this also.
Spurgeon doesn’t measure up to the Calvinist standard held by many. He is quoted out of convenience. It doesn’t seem to matter that he called people to repent and that he saw the blood of Jesus Christ as effective to save any and all sinners.

That is simply Calvinism. What you and others think is Calvinism is actually hyper-Calvinism. Read Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray (Banner of Truth).

 

[DaveXR650]

It sounds like he is addressing a teaching of his day. Spurgeon did this also.
Spurgeon doesn’t measure up to the Calvinist standard held by many. He is quoted out of convenience. It doesn’t seem to matter that he called people to repent and that he saw the blood of Jesus Christ as effective to save any and all sinners.

It's funny you mention Spurgeon. Everybody claims him. When I was younger I was a genuine fundamentalist. I even had my own subscription to Sword of the Lord. And my first introduction to Spurgeon was when I asked my pastor who the bearded guy was on the cover of one of the issues. He said "that's Spurgeon, and he's OK". A Calvinist on the cover of Sword of the Lord. That's crossover appeal!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Keep going to see how Paul interprets Deut 30!

This is the same section of choosing from Deut 30.

Why do you suppose that I or any Calvinist would have the slightest problem with that?