Dominion vs determinism 2

[JonC]

Free will as meaning one chooses what one wants to do without external coercion is held by all sides.

Then why do you argue against free-will theology?

Free-will theology insists that men can reject what Spurgeon called the "persuasion of God".

Many Calvinists believe that God changes men in such a way that men cannot but choose God (that God makes them a new man...or "regeneration"...before they are saved).

Free-will theology holds that the Spirit works within man in such a way as they can chose God (but being flesh they can continue choose to reject God).

Neither side believes libertarian free-will (and given past discussions I am pretty sure you know this).

Calvinists complain when the opposing side is intellectually dishonest, using strawman arguments, but at the same time Calvinists are the number one offender when it comes to dishonest arguments. Their goal is less truth and more winning an argument where an argument cannot be won by mistepresenting the opposing side.

The difference is not men acting apart from influences but those influences that exist in salvation as a process.


In salvation can men freely reject God based on the nature they have had since birth or does God intervene in such a way that men cannot resist?

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinists complain when the opposing side is intellectually dishonest, using strawman arguments, but at the same time Calvinists are the number one offender when it comes to dishonest arguments. Their goal is less truth and more winning an argument where an argument cannot be won by mistepresenting the opposing side.

I wish there would be some way for you to discuss these things without going so quickly to everyone else being intellectually dishonest. Once again I'll say it. Doing what one most wants to do without external coercion is at a level all sides agree on. That is not what theological free will advocates ask for.

Free-will theology insists that men can reject what Spurgeon called the "persuasion of God".

This is true. Some free will theology goes much further but this is where it begins. When a human chooses to do something, multiple influences are at work. We've been over that and I think agree. Commonly, what free will advocates mean by free will is that it is the gatekeeper which evaluates these various influences and then makes a choice based upon that evaluation. All creatures that act with intelligence do this but humans are conscious of the process and we label this our "free will".

This is the most important thing I'll say on here regarding this: What Calvinism puts forth is that this very gatekeeper itself, this final decisionmaker or arbiter which takes all these influences into account and finally gives a "go" to a decision is just as corrupt and prone to evil as many of the other influences on the will. In the next post I'll explain what the ramifications of this are.

 

[DaveXR650]

What Calvinism puts forth is that this very gatekeeper itself, this final decisionmaker or arbiter which takes all these influences into account and finally gives a "go" to a decision is just as corrupt and prone to evil as many of the other influences on the will. In the next post I'll explain what the ramifications of this are.

1. This means that persuasive influences, the scriptures, the commandments, preaching, even the conviction of the Holy Spirit will not be able to sufficiently influence the person to make the right choice in salvation because this gatekeeper we perceive is also corrupt and unable (unwilling) to do so.
2. Thus, something "actual" must be done to this gatekeeper (our perceived free will) because it is the real problem and simply will not come to Christ. The something that must be done for many Calvinists is actual regeneration and this is why they insist that regeneration comes before faith. This is not universal. Other Calvinists believe that this can be a supernatural enlightenment or an awakening. But what they do insist on, which makes it different than non-Calvinists, is that this works an actual change on this gatekeeper or the will itself, and not just an influence upon it.
3. And it is no. 2 above that thus sets up the rest of Calvinism as salvation being all of God. (And by that a Calvinist means that even the decision to come to Christ is all of God as explained above.)
4. Calvinists believe that our free will (this gatekeeper I keep talking about) while real as perceived, is so intertwined with our very being as a self aware individual, that in truth it is in essence "us" or who we actually are. And this is very important if you want to have meaningful discussion on this: The reason being, free will advocates are in practice insisting that there must be somehow a rational free and unimpaired something within us which can properly evaluate gospel influences - or else we cannot be held accountable. Calvinists insist that this won't do for the simple reason this unimpaired gatekeeper simply does not exist. Indeed, it is at this deep level that our real problem of evil and sin is most manifested. Our will is the problem, not the impartial gatekeeper which we can depend upon to get us saved.

This is where the real debate lies. Everything else is just flinging quotes from writers or creeds at each other.

 

[Psalty]

1. This means that persuasive influences, the scriptures, the commandments, preaching, even the conviction of the Holy Spirit will not be able to sufficiently influence the person to make the right choice in salvation because this gatekeeper we perceive is also corrupt and unable (unwilling) to do so.

I think this one is the main problem.
1. If this is true, like David Hume also suggests, you cant really know anything. You cant even know if you are saved, because your, senses, reasoning, perception, and any spiritual feeling are all susceptible to deception. You destroy your ability to know anything if you go this route including if you are saved.
2. God and Jesus indicate the complete opposite of inability to seek God. In the foundational chapter on what it means that sin is in the world, Gen 4, clearly some people like Abel seek to please God (Jesus calls him righteous in Mt 23) and others dont, like cain. Yet God indicates that Cain can choose to seek Him and tells him to!

 

[DaveXR650]

1. If this is true, like David Hume also suggests, you cant really know anything. You cant even know if you are saved, because your, senses, reasoning, perception, and any spiritual feeling are all susceptible to deception. You destroy your ability to know anything if you go this route including if you are saved.

I'm not familiar enough with Hume to comment on his work but what you said there is in a way true so maybe I'm agreeing with him. We have our senses, remembrance of events and the ability to reflect back and so on, but how do we really know what we know. The people in Matthew 7 seemed surprised to be told to depart and were told explicitly to look at the type of fruit for evidence. I know a lot of folks on here say don't be fruit inspectors, and I don't want to go off on a tangent, but the fact is, how we can know something is hard for us.

Regarding if you are saved, think about it. People talk about "an inner witness", feelings, belief that they are saved, being convinced that they are elect and so on. Others say look for evidence and then are told, no, don't do that. That shows lack of faith. Others give up and rely on performance of a ceremony or duty or rely on a professional priest or clergyman to pronounce salvation on them. If anything, in my opinion, this just proves my point, that we do not really have a reliable thing inside us to tell us these things. As Calvinism alone seems to understand, we really are a mess, and that is true even at the highest levels of consciousness.

2. God and Jesus indicate the complete opposite of inability to seek God. In the foundational chapter on what it means that sin is in the world, Gen 4, clearly some people like Abel seek to please God (Jesus calls him righteous in Mt 23) and others dont, like cain. Yet God indicates that Cain can choose to seek Him and tells him to!

They do indeed, but that isn't really the question to ask. In the theology of Calvinism by the time someone is confronted with a decision to make, all the supernatural work is either done or in play. The fact that it isn't brought out doesn't mean it's not still there. In Acts 13, the gospel was preached and some of the ones who heard decided to believe and be saved. It was also mentioned that the one's saved were "ordained" to be so. Other evidence for this would be that God does not seem to need to call on many different potential Moses's for instance until he found one who would actually do what God requested. Same with the disciples. Jesus did not ask 100 potential candidates in order to find the 12. But you are right in that at the moment it occurs, God asks and we willingly respond. I'm just saying that does not prove an innate ability to seek God.

 

[JonC]

I wish there would be some way for you to discuss these things without going so quickly to everyone else being intellectually dishonest. Once again I'll say it. Doing what one most wants to do without external coercion is at a level all sides agree on. That is not what theological free will advocates ask for.

This is true. Some free will theology goes much further but this is where it begins. When a human chooses to do something, multiple influences are at work. We've been over that and I think agree. Commonly, what free will advocates mean by free will is that it is the gatekeeper which evaluates these various influences and then makes a choice based upon that evaluation. All creatures that act with intelligence do this but humans are conscious of the process and we label this our "free will".

This is the most important thing I'll say on here regarding this: What Calvinism puts forth is that this very gatekeeper itself, this final decisionmaker or arbiter which takes all these influences into account and finally gives a "go" to a decision is just as corrupt and prone to evil as many of the other influences on the will. In the next post I'll explain what the ramifications of this are.

I sincerely wish debates here did not dissolve into intellectual dishonesty. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Any argument or debate has to start with defining terms. After that - and ONLY after that - arguments go forward using the deginition of the opposing view to argue against the opposing view. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

Free-will theology does not define free-will as uninfluenced. In fact, free-will theology holds that men can only come to God through the work of God (the Spirit). So by definition there is the Influence.

The difference is whether one influence (the flesh) ends when the other (the Spirit) begins. Free-will theology holds it does not.


You replace the free-will advocates definition of free-will with libertarian free-will (a theoretical type of free-will that most free-will theologies reject exists). That is not an honest argument by any standard.


I suspect you do this because opponents to Calvinism often employ the same type of dishonest strawman argument. They cannot win an argument through such strategies and neither will you. All you can hope for is the praise of men who share your opinion.

 

[Psalty]

I'm not familiar enough with Hume to comment on his work but what you said there is in a way true so maybe I'm agreeing with him. We have our senses, remembrance of events and the ability to reflect back and so on, but how do we really know what we know. The people in Matthew 7 seemed surprised to be told to depart and were told explicitly to look at the type of fruit for evidence. I know a lot of folks on here say don't be fruit inspectors, and I don't want to go off on a tangent, but the fact is, how we can know something is hard for us.

Regarding if you are saved, think about it. People talk about "an inner witness", feelings, belief that they are saved, being convinced that they are elect and so on. Others say look for evidence and then are told, no, don't do that. That shows lack of faith. Others give up and rely on performance of a ceremony or duty or rely on a professional priest or clergyman to pronounce salvation on them. If anything, in my opinion, this just proves my point, that we do not really have a reliable thing inside us to tell us these things. As Calvinism alone seems to understand, we really are a mess, and that is true even at the highest levels of consciousness.

I think you are missing the point on this one. If someone is depraved and can never be influenced or make a choice towards the things of God, with corrupt faculties, the Calvinists systematic places any of those evidences into question, even after salvation… because on Calvinism you cant trust your salvation… you cant trust a feeling of forgiveness, or scripture, or anything else due to corrupt faculties.

On the other hand if someone believes that they can be salvifically influenced, like the apostle paul debating and reasoning or Jesus using scripture, then a non calvinist could.

You can either trust these things to a reasonable degree or you cant trust them at all. The calvinist cant use these at all.

They do indeed, but that isn't really the question to ask. In the theology of Calvinism by the time someone is confronted with a decision to make, all the supernatural work is either done or in play.

If calvinism is true.

The fact that it isn't brought out doesn't mean it's not still there.

This is one of calvinisms biggest grievances in my mind. How could you take the story of Cain and abel and assert that even though God was verbally telling Cain that he should resist sin, that actually all the spiritual work that needed to be done was something that God had to give and He said this knowing He wouldnt allow Cain to repent? This makes God a deceiver. I cant reconcile it..

In Acts 13, the gospel was preached and some of the ones who heard decided to believe and be saved. It was also mentioned that the one's saved were "ordained" to be so.

It doesnt say God ordained them. If you look where the word “appointed” also in Acts, check Acts 28:23 people appoint for themselves, and in 1 Cor 16:15 it means “to devout oneself”. There is no clear indication that God is appointing salvifically, but when looking at the Jews, its likely that its the “devouted” sense.

Other evidence for this would be that God does not seem to need to call on many different potential Moses's for instance until he found one who would actually do what God requested. Same with the disciples. Jesus did not ask 100 potential candidates in order to find the 12.

But these arent salvation. This is appointment to service and a particular task.

But you are right in that at the moment it occurs, God asks and we willingly respond. I'm just saying that does not prove an innate ability to seek God.

No, not innately. The truth is people can be skeptical and not conclude anything.

Back to your original philosophical question: if someone makes a choice, i could wither be predestined, or it could be someone exercising their will. I can see determinism as a possibility, or free will. I cant know for sure because these theorums are untestable, so far as I have thought through.

However it does seem like will and choice, including those for goodness and even christ, are driving factors in how this world operates.
Maybe this would be worth getting more into, but ive already said a lot.

 

[DaveXR650]

even after salvation

No, everyone I think agrees that being born again gives a new life principle and will. We have problems because the old nature is still present though.

You can either trust these things to a reasonable degree or you cant trust them at all. The calvinist cant use these at all.

I find this amusing, not because of what you said, but because of the fact that Calvinists have written reams of some of the best and most useful information on how to know you are saved and how to examine yourself. And yet, on another thread currently most of the Calvinists on here are refuting that very idea. You can know you are saved to a reasonable degree, but it is difficult. And, you do have to keep in mind that the Puritan idea of self-examination can be taken too far because there is an element of assurance in saving faith itself, or so says Calvin.

This is one of calvinisms biggest grievances in my mind. How could you take the story of Cain and abel and assert that even though God was verbally telling Cain that he should resist sin, that actually all the spiritual work that needed to be done was something that God had to give and He said this knowing He wouldnt allow Cain to repent? This makes God a deceiver. I cant reconcile it..

Frankly, I find this problematic too. Look, I am not a totally convinced Calvinist, and I find the practical writings some of the most helpful info ever short of scripture, but I am less impressed with the metaphysics of the theology. If you notice, the Calvinist/Arminian debate is one of the most popular areas on this forum, but for almost everyone it stays at the level of stating the positions outlined in the most basic texts and then condemning the other side as heretical. Or, like Jon says, dishonest.

You are one of the few people on here that will stick with a discussion of the whys of the theological propositions. The other Calvinists are nowhere to be found when the discussions actually ask you to defend your philosophy. Everyone is happy to announce their theology and throw out a few verses but most of the time the other side is throwing out the same verses. So they condemn the other side and then go silent.

 

[Silverhair]

Calvinists have written reams of some of the best and most useful information on how to know you are saved and how to examine yourself.

The problem that I find with the examine yourself view is that they can take it so far as to be trusting in their good deeds to prove they are saved.

Another problem is that even those that produce good fruit may fall away to which we will be told they were never really saved.

So to trust in your fruit or your self evaluation is not, as it turns out, very useful.

 

[DaveXR650]

Back to your original philosophical question: if someone makes a choice, i could wither be predestined, or it could be someone exercising their will. I can see determinism as a possibility, or free will. I cant know for sure because these theorums are untestable, so far as I have thought through.

This is indeed the core issue here. And almost no one is really interested in discussing it with an open mind. Let me state one more time what I have discovered so far. As I said, I believe some areas of Calvinism are problematic. I discovered this by extensive reading of my favorite Calvinists, the Puritans, mostly due to about 12 years ago breaking my leg so bad I was pretty much incapacitated for anything else. And I discovered that the modern, strict, deterministic way the theology is explained by most modern Calvinists is not what the Puritans preached and taught. (Although they would freely assert it when asked to defend Calvinism - against another school of thought.) So what's going on?

I don't know for sure but if it's any help I can tell you that to a post Reformation Calvinist, something indeed can be predestinated, therefore necessary to happen - and at the same time the free will of the individuals involved is not directly manipulated. Furthermore, something major, like the Fall, can be declared to happen, ordained by God, and thus something that had to happen as a necessity - and yet Adam and Eve acted completely according to their own free will.

This is a whole step above the debate people are willing to engage in on here. I would refer you to R.C. Sproul's "Chosen By God" as a quick primer, especially his chapter on free will. He likes Edwards, and if you want to try it, read Edwards "On the Freedom of the Will". Also, John Owen discusses this at length in his works and it's especially useful in his discussion on "Pneumonology". I am currently, when I have time, looking at Richard Muller's "Divine Will and Human Choice, Freedom Contingency and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought". I admit it is a little above my head and education level but maybe if it doesn't drive me nuts it will help prevent senile dementia onset. I would rather do that than puzzles.

 

[DaveXR650]

The problem that I find with the examine yourself view is that they can take it so far as to be trusting in their good deeds to prove they are saved.

Another problem is that even those that produce good fruit may fall away to which we will be told they were never really saved.

So to trust in your fruit or your self evaluation is not, as it turns out, very useful.

Sure, it's a problem if you go too far. But it's just as much of a problem to rely on the fact that at some time in the past you prayed a prayer, walked an aisle, were baptized, or confirmed, or whatever. And we are easily deceived, even self deceived, as scripture warns. And you tend to do what you believe. Therefore, since we have the power to reflect back - we should do so.

Not that it's the only thing. Or even the best thing for your assurance. But it is a legitimate thing.

 

[SovereignGrace]

What this says is that they essentially have to be saved before they can be saved.

No, that is not what I said at all my friend. As I stated earlier, being born again and being saved are two separate things. Being born again is the new birth, born from above, born anew. Being saved is being saved from the penalty of sin. They are not the same, but happen simultaneously. One is not born again and saved later nor is one saved and born again later.

Romans 10:20
But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

This says nothing of being changed. It just shows that God is showing Himself to people who are not looking. It doesn’t mean that one day they get up and decide to start looking. The gospel is brought to them first.
But if they have been changed from the natural man before salvation, they no longer need salvation because they are no longer the natural man.

Again, salvation is an inside-out working of the Holy Spirit. He first changes the heart, the disposition of the one who is at enmity with God. Look at the "Valley of dry bones" in Ezekiel 37:1-10. I know this was a vision, but it shows how God works to bring the spiritually dead to life. God tells Ezekiel what to say and then things take place. Bone to its bone, sinew, flesh, then skin. He is told to prophesy to the wind and after he does this, the wind (NASB and ESV use "breath") blows upon them and they stand upon their feet. As we witness to ppl, it takes the Holy Spirit to move as we speak the gospel to them to bring them to life, just like the wind/breath moved as Ezekiel prophesied to those bones.

 

[DaveXR650]

Neither side believes libertarian free-will (and given past discussions I am pretty sure you know this).

Calvinists complain when the opposing side is intellectually dishonest, using strawman arguments, but at the same time Calvinists are the number one offender when it comes to dishonest arguments. Their goal is less truth and more winning an argument where an argument cannot be won by mistepresenting the opposing side.

The "liberty of indifference"(libertarian freedom), is the freedom to have done otherwise than in actual fact we chose to do on any occasion in the past. Faced with a choice between two courses of action in the future, liberty of indifference would imply that the choice is completely open. I can choose either course of action indifferently; and having chosen the one course of action, I can, on looking back, know that I could equally well have freely chosen the other course. I can choose, or could have chosen, to do X or not-X. In this book, when I use the term "free will" I shall understand it in this sense.

@JonC. The above is from John Lennox book "Determined to Believe?". I bolded the one sentence but it is a direct quote. He is not a Calvinist, is refuting Calvinism, and doing an excellent job of it as well, but he indeed uses free will as libertarian free will. And he states that it is that which he is defending in his book. Immediately prior to that he explains the type of free will you keep claiming is the only true definition of free will and then he states he is not defending that because it is not an area of contraversy. So it would seem that the author of the best current book supporting free will believes the definition of free will that you claim is an intellectually dishonest, strawman argument. Could we at least put that concept to rest then?