Dominion vs determinism 2

[JonC]

Theology dilemma: If the desire to love God is given to a person by an act of God's sovereignty, is it really love?

We view genuine love as a voluntary act rather than something pre-determined by a forced congruence: they only love God because that's the way God made them.

Rob

I question whether it is theology at all. As your post demonstrates with the dilemma, the issue is philosophy. Theology would be studying "what is written" rather than being carried away from the biblical narrative and context. The determinism vs free-will issue begins with ancient Greek philosophy, not Hebrew thought.

Hebrew thought (from the ANE period through the LIA) had no issue accepting both divine sovereignty and human free-will. We have a problem with it because we have a secular Western worldview.

But if we adopt a biblical worldview then this topic does not exist (there are no Calvinists or Arminians within a biblical worldview).

The obvious problem is we are Western people. I am simply saying we need to remember this "problem" is our problem. It is not a biblical issue but an issue of our worldview and therefore cannot (IMHO) be properly considered "theology"and the first step in theology is to study within the biblical worldview.

 

[DaveXR650]

I question whether it is theology at all. As your post demonstrates with the dilemma, the issue is philosophy. Theology would be studying "what is written" rather than being carried away from the biblical narrative and context. The determinism vs free-will issue begins with ancient Greek philosophy, not Hebrew thought.

Hebrew thought (from the ANE period through the LIA) had no issue accepting both divine sovereignty and human free-will. We have a problem with it because we have a secular Western worldview.

But if we adopt a biblical worldview then this topic does not exist (there are no Calvinists or Arminians within a biblical worldview).

The obvious problem is we are Western people. I am simply saying we need to remember this "problem" is our problem. It is not a biblical issue but an issue of our worldview and therefore cannot (IMHO) be properly considered "theology"and the first step in theology is to study within the biblical worldview.

Strange as it may seem I agree with you. Scripture has many instances where the intercourse between God and men can only make sense if men have freedom of their own to do, or not do, what is being proposed. And, though scripture also gives God sovereignty in the course of human events, it is clear that many times men are given a choice which God clearly states will result in the events going one way or another based on the decision of the men. This has always troubled me in my studies of theology.

Hebrew thought (from the ANE period through the LIA) had no issue accepting both divine sovereignty and human free-will. We have a problem with it because we have a secular Western worldview.

Excuse my ignorance as I'm not sure what the "LIA" means but I have discussed this with some of the Calvinists on here and I would say that this idea of God's sovereignty and man's free will was not a problem with the Puritan era Calvinists either. How else could John Owen be considered a high Calvinist and yet write reams on the dangers of the deception of sin and apostacy. How could Bunyan write on the truth of reprobation yet in the same paper state repeatedly that should even a reprobate return to Christ they could. My own opinion is that this seeming contradiction occurred because of more modern thought and a scientific type of "either/or" logic that demands that if something like God's sovereignty is true then man's free will must be a falsehood.

Evidence for this would be that some of the strict Calvinists on here don't like the Puritans, and say so. And they are Calvinists even if they deny the label. In addition, I find that my views on absolute determinism are different than Calvinists who became Calvinists by listening to the modern day writers verses people like me who started reading the Puritans before being aware of the philosophy behind all this.

 

[Psalty]

I question whether it is theology at all. As your post demonstrates with the dilemma, the issue is philosophy. Theology would be studying "what is written" rather than being carried away from the biblical narrative and context. The determinism vs free-will issue begins with ancient Greek philosophy, not Hebrew thought.

Hebrew thought (from the ANE period through the LIA) had no issue accepting both divine sovereignty and human free-will. We have a problem with it because we have a secular Western worldview.

But if we adopt a biblical worldview then this topic does not exist (there are no Calvinists or Arminians within a biblical worldview).

The obvious problem is we are Western people. I am simply saying we need to remember this "problem" is our problem. It is not a biblical issue but an issue of our worldview and therefore cannot (IMHO) be properly considered "theology"and the first step in theology is to study within the biblical worldview.

Is sovereignty that God determines everything, or that He CAN determine what He wants, including giving choice?

As much as I like your sentiment, I do not believe that calvinists can hold to both, because if God decrees “whatsoever comes to pass” then it cant be a choice. However, if you hold to the second description of sovereignty, then like you said, there is no problem with them both coexisting.

 

[JonC]

Strange as it may seem I agree with you. Scripture has many instances where the intercourse between God and men can only make sense if men have freedom of their own to do, or not do, what is being proposed. And, though scripture also gives God sovereignty in the course of human events, it is clear that many times men are given a choice which God clearly states will result in the events going one way or another based on the decision of the men. This has always troubled me in my studies of theology.

Excuse my ignorance as I'm not sure what the "LIA" means but I have discussed this with some of the Calvinists on here and I would say that this idea of God's sovereignty and man's free will was not a problem with the Puritan era Calvinists either. How else could John Owen be considered a high Calvinist and yet write reams on the dangers of the deception of sin and apostacy. How could Bunyan write on the truth of reprobation yet in the same paper state repeatedly that should even a reprobate return to Christ they could. My own opinion is that this seeming contradiction occurred because of more modern thought and a scientific type of "either/or" logic that demands that if something like God's sovereignty is true then man's free will must be a falsehood.

Evidence for this would be that some of the strict Calvinists on here don't like the Puritans, and say so. And they are Calvinists even if they deny the label. In addition, I find that my views on absolute determinism are different than Calvinists who became Calvinists by listening to the modern day writers verses people like me who started reading the Puritans before being aware of the philosophy behind all this.

Sorry...really should have said early Roman period. Or....Eastern mindset would have been best.

Many of the "theological" issues are philosophical concerns we get when we replace the biblical worldview with a Western worldview.

Calvinism (now) covers a very wide range with different philosophical leanings. But most, if not all, of these lables do.

 

[DaveXR650]

Is sovereignty that God determines everything, or that He CAN determine what He wants, including giving choice?

Some Calvinists do indeed insist that God determines everything, and I'm not going to try to defend them. But the same problem occurs on the other end of the spectrum. That is, using the same either/or logic, if God allows true freedom then can he really predict anything? (And I view the idea of just "seeing the future" as having been debunked by Calvinist theologians a long time ago. To see something ahead of time as happening - and thus declaring that it will infallibly happen, is also deterministic, simply because once it is decreed that it will happen by God then it must happen, whether it was a free choice or not. With our modern mindset, as Jon said, this is a problem that cannot be solved. You have to accept both in my opinion.

To say that God can sovereignly determine to give autonomous choice is I think a valid argument. And I think it is tempered with God's wisdom in helping us, who most I don't think would ever come to Christ, in holding back evil in the world, and in having his overall will come about as he has planned. Our free will is not only severely impaired in that we are in trouble if that is all that can lead us to Christ,but in addition, our free will can lead us to plenty of foolishness and sin. Strict Calvinists ere if they act like our own will does not exist, or that we cannot, with God's help, develop virtues. Free willers ere in that they hold it in such high esteem that they bristle at anything God himself might do to change it, which is silly on it's face, as what could be more desirable to us as having more devotion, more holiness, and more hatred of sin. And of course I realize that the question comes up "Well, you just said 'more desirable to us' which proves that our free will is capable of at least desiring God's assistance in our improvement". And, you would be right. Our will, is so closely intertwined with our thoughts and consciousness that if or when God works in it it still appears that we thought of it as our thoughts or improvements. And there you go. The arguments continues. It cannot be solved.

 

[Psalty]

Some Calvinists do indeed insist that God determines everything, and I'm not going to try to defend them. But the same problem occurs on the other end of the spectrum. That is, using the same either/or logic, if God allows true freedom then can he really predict anything? (And I view the idea of just "seeing the future" as having been debunked by Calvinist theologians a long time ago. To see something ahead of time as happening - and thus declaring that it will infallibly happen, is also deterministic, simply because once it is decreed that it will happen by God then it must happen, whether it was a free choice or not. With our modern mindset, as Jon said, this is a problem that cannot be solved. You have to accept both in my opinion.

This is a good statement. However, I would disagree with the fact that if God knows the future, that He would necessarily have to determine it. I have never heard a good argument for this. Could you share what you have learned on this front?

To say that God can sovereignly determine to give autonomous choice is I think a valid argument. And I think it is tempered with God's wisdom in helping us, who most I don't think would ever come to Christ, in holding back evil in the world, and in having his overall will come about as he has planned. Our free will is not only severely impaired in that we are in trouble if that is all that can lead us to Christ,but in addition, our free will can lead us to plenty of foolishness and sin. Strict Calvinists ere if they act like our own will does not exist, or that we cannot, with God's help, develop virtues. Free willers ere in that they hold it in such high esteem that they bristle at anything God himself might do to change it, which is silly on it's face, as what could be more desirable to us as having more devotion, more holiness, and more hatred of sin. And of course I realize that the question comes up "Well, you just said 'more desirable to us' which proves that our free will is capable of at least desiring God's assistance in our improvement". And, you would be right. Our will, is so closely intertwined with our thoughts and consciousness that if or when God works in it it still appears that we thought of it as our thoughts or improvements. And there you go. The arguments continues. It cannot be solved.

This is well stated.

I also think that the intervention of the gospel which is the power of God that draws people to Himself. Without it, we have no hope. We are not left to free-will alone, which would be folly, however free we may be.

I would also add that the Spirit is also critically important to convict regarding Sin, Righteousness, and Judgment (Jn 16:13). Again, and additional help that God has given to draw and guide us to Himself.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is a good statement. However, I would disagree with the fact that if God knows the future, that He would necessarily have to determine it. I have never heard a good argument for this. Could you share what you have learned on this front?

Jonathan Edwards did some work on this. Basically the idea is that if God sees something as happening in the future, if it is true that this is what he really sees as happening - then that is what must occur. And this is contradictory to the idea of a free will decision (autonomous) - that by definition must be allowed to choose the other at any time, as being possible for the simple reason that such a decision would change the future event. Edwards solved this by saying that nothing happens that God does not at minimum "allow" to happen, and therefore in that sense God ordains it. Molinism came along and said no, what God does since he is all knowing is to know all possible free will choices, and all possible consequences, and have a plan for dealing with all free will future decisions. Molinists say that you can't truly know a true free will decision because it does not exist yet and thus cannot be known - even by God. (God is OK with this because as said earlier, he decreed that free will would exist in his creatures).

Both agree that the simple idea that God sees ahead free will will decisions is not really possible, either because the decisions are not autonomously free since God knows and allows it (Edwards) or, God truly allows true autonomous decisions that cannot be known until they happen but God has all bases covered so to speak in all cases.

I know guys like C.S. Lewis, who I like, said that God is outside of time and thus sees all events unfold like we would stand above a sheet and see the whole sheet whereas we are at ground level and only see the present. To me that still means Edwards is right because if God finds something outside of his tolerance he can modify it - which most of us agree on. The problem I think is that many free willers don't have the courage to state what is really happening here. Regarding Molinism, I laughed at it at first, but if you really think about it it may have some merit. At any rate, I would not debate Dr. Craig.

(I realize Molinism was timewise before Edwards. It has more recently been used in the free will debates/)

 

[Psalty]

Jonathan Edwards did some work on this. Basically the idea is that if God sees something as happening in the future, if it is true that this is what he really sees as happening - then that is what must occur. And this is contradictory to the idea of a free will decision (autonomous) - that by definition must be allowed to choose the other at any time, as being possible for the simple reason that such a decision would change the future event. Edwards solved this by saying that nothing happens that God does not at minimum "allow" to happen, and therefore in that sense God ordains it. Molinism came along and said no, what God does since he is all knowing is to know all possible free will choices, and all possible consequences, and have a plan for dealing with all free will future decisions. Molinists say that you can't truly know a true free will decision because it does not exist yet and thus cannot be known - even by God. (God is OK with this because as said earlier, he decreed that free will would exist in his creatures).

Hmm, I dont follow that. If God created a world with human will, I dont see why it would mean that He is determining it. He IS determining that humans would have will. That alone means that they will choose. Why can He not maintain omniscious foreknowledge of what choice a human would make? What about the human choice being “free” (I prefer thinking of it as “human willed” makes a God who is all-knowing not able to know the outcome?

I have no problem thinking about this as ”God ordained” like you are saying that Edwards said, but this is in no sense deterministic. “Ordaining” meaning that God allowed a creation of free will and knows the outcome is simply no where close to calvinism or determinism/fatalism.
This would be like saying that God created an ant-farm. The ants are free to live morally how they please. But God ordained it because he created the ant-farm. That is much different than God determining the moral choices and ultimate moral destiny of each ant. He has simply ordained the system.

I personally am not interested in Molinism or the mind-bending that it brings, lol. Too much like Multi-verse theory which is all theory and no application, imho. Fun, complicated, and I dont have enough time to do it justice (or lack thereof!)

Both agree that the simple idea that God sees ahead free will will decisions is not really possible, either because the decisions are not autonomously free since God knows and allows it (Edwards) or, God truly allows true autonomous decisions that cannot be known until they happen but God has all bases covered so to speak in all cases.

I know guys like C.S. Lewis, who I like, said that God is outside of time and thus sees all events unfold like we would stand above a sheet and see the whole sheet whereas we are at ground level and only see the present. To me that still means Edwards is right because if God finds something outside of his tolerance he can modify it - which most of us agree on. The problem I think is that many free willers don't have the courage to state what is really happening here. Regarding Molinism, I laughed at it at first, but if you really think about it it may have some merit. At any rate, I would not debate Dr. Craig.

(I realize Molinism was timewise before Edwards. It has more recently been used in the free will debates/)

 

[JonC]

Jonathan Edwards did some work on this. Basically the idea is that if God sees something as happening in the future, if it is true that this is what he really sees as happening - then that is what must occur. And this is contradictory to the idea of a free will decision (autonomous) - that by definition must be allowed to choose the other at any time, as being possible for the simple reason that such a decision would change the future event.

Edward's argument was that this should be a non-issue because if God is omniscient then everything is predestined occur as God knows it will occur.

I think the difference (the disagreement) is God causing these things to occur vs God knowing that they will occur.

Edward's position does not remove the possibility autonomous, or free-will, decisions.

This is why some Calvinists do not consider Edwardian Calvinism to be legitimate Calvinism (it was a modification to traditional Calvinnism).

 

[DaveXR650]

Hmm, I dont follow that. If God created a world with human will, I dont see why it would mean that He is determining it.

I agree. That's why even determinists like R.C. Sproul said that every minute detail of every action is either determined or allowed by God. Edwards was just arguing that just "seeing" into the future is impossible - not that God can't do so, but that the reason God can do so is because when he says this or that will happen he is sovereignly ensuring that it will. He doesn't always have to intervene, but he will indeed make sure what he said will happen - happens. He is not like us who try to do that but can easily be thwarted. Free willers demand a type of free will that if you really think about it gives them the right to indeed thwart God's plans, yet they try to get around it by saying God simply "sees" what will naturally happen. But Edwards says no, to see means a level of sovereignty that can be as active as God desires.

So Edwards was just saying that the idea of passively looking into the future is actually bogus. I can accurately predict an eclipse but only because I happen to have charts that have mapped out what God has actually "made so" as far as planetary pathways and so on. When God predicts an eclipse he isn't using charts because he made the paths of the planets. To be accurate you either have to be able to control the motions of the system or have access to information of how it was made so. Seeing ahead, without having any information about sovereign action, or actually being sovereign, is not possible.

 

[JonC]

I agree. That's why even determinists like R.C. Sproul said that every minute detail of every action is either determined or allowed by God. Edwards was just arguing that just "seeing" into the future is impossible - not that God can't do so, but that the reason God can do so is because when he says this or that will happen he is sovereignly ensuring that it will. He doesn't always have to intervene, but he will indeed make sure what he said will happen - happens. He is not like us who try to do that but can easily be thwarted. Free willers demand a type of free will that if you really think about it gives them the right to indeed thwart God's plans, yet they try to get around it by saying God simply "sees" what will naturally happen. But Edwards says no, to see means a level of sovereignty that can be as active as God desires.

So Edwards was just saying that the idea of passively looking into the future is actually bogus. I can accurately predict an eclipse but only because I happen to have charts that have mapped out what God has actually "made so" as far as planetary pathways and so on. When God predicts an eclipse he isn't using charts because he made the paths of the planets. To be accurate you either have to be able to control the motions of the system or have access to information of how it was made so. Seeing ahead, without having any information about sovereign action, or actually being sovereign, is not possible.

If I understand you correctly (please let me kniw if I do not) you are saying that God knows future events because He causes them to occur....like I know a window is going to break because I am going to smash it with a hammer.

I think this was James Arminius' issue with the Calvinism of his day. God knew Judas would betray Jesus because God caused that sin in Judas. Arminius viewed this as the same as saying God causes evil or sin (something some Calvinists affirm while others reject).

I do not think, however, that knowing based on causing can be appropriately called "omniscience".

 

[Deacon]

I question whether it is theology at all. As your post demonstrates with the dilemma, the issue is philosophy. Theology would be studying "what is written" rather than being carried away from the biblical narrative and context. The determinism vs free-will issue begins with ancient Greek philosophy, not Hebrew thought.

I don't have many books of the subject of free will but about half of them are non-religious philosophy - boring as all get-out!
When I want to frustrate myself I'll pick one up and browse the pages.
One of the most helpful books I enjoy is Scott Christensen's, "What about Free Will?" (the book's on my desktop now - I thought it might relate to Rahab's story in Joshua 2 and 6...but I decided to go in a different direction).

Christensen teaches a middle ground position called, Compatibilism.
God exercises his sovereign power in ways that don't forces themselves upon people.
When people choose a path it aligns with God's sovereign plan.

God’s knowledge causes nothing to happen; it simply guarantees that God knows what will occur. "When causal conditions don’t constrain our deeds, God’s knowledge of those causes and our resulting action in no way constrains us as we act".

It's best demonstrated in the various interaction between Moses, Pharoah, and the LORD.

Rob

 

[JonC]

I don't have many books of the subject of free will but about half of them are non-religious philosophy - boring as all get-out!
When I want to frustrate myself I'll pick one up and browse the pages.
One of the most helpful books I enjoy is Scott Christensen's, "What about Free Will?" (the book's on my desktop now - I thought it might relate to Rahab's story in Joshua 2 and 6...but I decided to go in a different direction).

Christensen teaches a middle ground position called, Compatibilism.
God exercises his sovereign power in ways that don't forces themselves upon people.
When people choose a path it aligns with God's sovereign plan.

God’s knowledge causes nothing to happen; it simply guarantees that God knows what will occur. "When causal conditions don’t constrain our deeds, God’s knowledge of those causes and our resulting action in no way constrains us as we act".

It's best demonstrated in the various interaction between Moses, Pharoah, and the LORD.

Rob

I would hold to Compatibilism. I believe God is sovereign even over the outcome of events, but without necessarily being the cause and not apart from free-will.

I do not understand why people feel the need to hold a hard stance on divine decree vs free-will while accepting doctrines like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, and the Word being made flesh. That seems a very inconsistent mentality.

There is so much about God that transcends human wisdom. I just do not see why the mind of God would be different.

So I am very comfortable believing God is sovereign, will accomplish His plan, and men have free-will. I do not need a philosophy to work through the process as it is not my lane. I do not need to understand the "how" to believe any more than I need to understand how Jesus is fully man and fully God to believe it.

 

[Ascetic X]

I would hold to Compatibilism. I believe God is sovereign even over the outcome of events, but without necessarily being the cause and not apart from free-will.

I do not understand why people feel the need to hold a hard stance on divine decree vs free-will while accepting doctrines like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, and the Word being made flesh. That seems a very inconsistent mentality.

There is so much about God that transcends human wisdom. I just do not see why the mind of God would be different.

So I am very comfortable believing God is sovereign, will accomplish His plan, and men have free-will. I do not need a philosophy to work through the process as it is not my lane. I do not need to understand the "how" to believe any more than I need to understand how Jesus is fully man and fully God to believe it.

I would say that afflictions are allowed by God, but not necessarily put on us or decreed by God.

Jesus healed, restored sight to the blind, cleansed lepers, cast out demons, and raised the dead. If these afflictions were put upon people by God, then Jesus would be acting in opposition to God.

Apostle Paul’s persecution, which he called a thorn in the flesh, buffeted and hindered Paul. God allowed it and would not stop it, but it is called a messenger of Satan.

Job’s afflictions were allowed by God, but they were put on Job by Satan.

But God foresees that certain habits, attitudes, environments, and diets will result in illness.

 

[DaveXR650]

If I understand you correctly (please let me kniw if I do not) you are saying that God knows future events because He causes them to occur....like I know a window is going to break because I am going to smash it with a hammer.

I'm really clumsy in explaining this but to use your example: If God says that next Tuesday your window will break then I think we all agree that it is true that it will be broken next Tuesday. And while I am not saying that God has to personally break the window, nor am I saying that he has to order someone to break the window - it is true that if God states that the window will be broken next Tuesday then it is necessary that this happen. Why is it necessary? Because God has decreed that it be so. It is not necessary that God break it, or even that breaking it would be his primary will - just that because he decreed it it must now come to pass that it be broken next Tuesday.

On a more serious note you know how theologians argue over whether God could decree the fall without actually causing it. And opinions of serious people vary from yes he caused it, to that he set it up, to no, he had to develop a contingent plan after it happened. I don't know the correct answer myself but I just know that for Edwards, he did not accept the idea that just simply and passively viewing the future was a logical possibility. We attempt to do that but what we are really doing is playing the odds and when able, doing what we can to influence the outcome. Not so with God. All future events happen because of a cause. If the cause is known and one has the ability, the cause may be modified to get a different result. God has the absolute right and total ability to do this - as well as to allow other things to happen as they are unfolding without modifying what is unfolding - even if it is being done by someone acting against a revealed command or admonition of God. He can allow that, and still have that be under his sovereign permission to occur, and thus still have the one who does such be truly and actually guilty of doing that action. This is Calvinistic determinism and I believe it is pretty well done for human theology. But, it is true that there are Calvinists who say that God personally and absolutely determines directly, every action and event that occurs. I do not think that is correct. But not everyone buys into my distinction, which is fine.

 

[Ascetic X]

On a more serious note you know how theologians argue over whether God could decree the fall without actually causing it.

God cannot give a command, then will or decree that His command be violated. God does not sin nor does He cause sin to happen. That would be a house divided against itself, which cannot stand, as Jesus declared.