Dominion vs determinism 2

[DaveXR650]

Dave I put in bold what I see as a contradiction is your thinking. If God causes all things then the person is just doing what God has caused them to do. If they are acting against a revealed command it is only because God causes them to do so.

Now you are reading your philosophy into what I said. Every choice or decision you make has a "cause" but that does not mean that God directly made you do it. Around lunchtime we all start figuring out what we're going to do to obtain lunch. And our choices are truly free. But what we end up doing is "caused" because biology determined our perception of hunger, our location and resources determine our choice of where we obtain food. Our choice was in no way "autonomous" and those desires were not self generated. Everything leading up to "my" decision of what to do for lunch was influenced by something beforehand, even a food ad on the car radio for instance. So if God knows all this, and made you as well, could he not by taking all this into account, "determine" what you will do, have sovereignty over what you do, and at the same time not violate your free will as a creature. I say yes, and I'm afraid you free willers are pretending even this level of influence and dependence is not real. But it is. You are not a sovereign, independent individual. Now where I differ from some Calvinists is that I believe that there are some areas where God is indifferent of my choices and he truly leaves them to us. Though we are not autonomous I don't really believe God cares at all where I eat lunch and has left it totally to me and given me all I need to do that on my own. He has also made me aware that I am not to steal my lunch or take it away from someone weaker than me and if I do that I have willfully sinned and cannot blame God, nor can I claim that I have some inability to avoid doing such.

 

[DaveXR650]

So for God to then condemn them for doing just as He caused/decreed would call into question the character of God. Where is the justice in Him condemning the person for doing just what God has caused/decreed for him to do? Has the person done other than what God must have desired for that person to do at that particular time?

So in Calvinistic determinism, if God, knowing someone is going to attempt something evil, decides to leave if be and let it unfold then he is still sovereignly in control but then is it his fault that it happens? Calvinistic theologians are not shy to say in a sense, yes, in that he could have intervened but didn't. Is God then guilty of what happened? They say no, because the evil action was done by the person by their own free will. You should applaud that because they are the ones recognizing free will. God does reserve the right to use evil people and once he judges that they are especially evil, he has the right to use them as he sees fit. If God raised up Pharoah to glorify God by being defeated it doesn't mean Pharoah would have been a nice fellow if God had left him alone. It just means that God raised him up for a public display of what happens when you oppose God. It could just as well been that the person who became Pharoah could have been a nasty shopkeeper who was cruel to his servants and family but never heard of. Calvinists don't say God makes anyone evil but evil people should beware - we will all glorify God, either by giving him praise and glory for saving us or by illustrating what happens to evil people.

 

[JonC]

The attack on "free will" by Calvinism is just saying that one should not demand an ability to make uncaused, totally autonomous, decisions because this doesn't make sense philosophically.

I disagree here. The attack on free-will by Calvinists is an attack that free-will exists.

That free-will exists (the ability to make un-caused, totally automonous decisions) may or may not be logical. I believe it is. BUT the important thing is that this type of free-will is biblical (Prov 16) so regardless of logic we have to accept it.

What many Calvinists turn to is libertarian free-will (a philosophical theory), but this is not an honest path as no supporter of free-will defines "free-will" as divorced from all influence (culture, worldview, personal ideologies, upbringing, etc).

Basically, what biblical free-will means is that the plans of man belong to that man (the response comes from God), and man plans his own steps (God establishes the outcome).

Those who believe this use passages like Prov 16:1 (To humans belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord comes the proper answer of the tongue) and Prov 16:9 (In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps) along with passages denying God as the cause of evil yet men choosing evil (and attributing this choice to be evil).

The logical point is that men simply have free-will (we make our choices free of coercion). In terms of Scripture this means men are actually guilty (not just of doing evil but of being wicked) rather than a victim of divine circumstance.

 

[Silverhair]

Now you are reading your philosophy into what I said. Every choice or decision you make has a "cause" but that does not mean that God directly made you do it. Around lunchtime we all start figuring out what we're going to do to obtain lunch. And our choices are truly free. But what we end up doing is "caused" because biology determined our perception of hunger, our location and resources determine our choice of where we obtain food. Our choice was in no way "autonomous" and those desires were not self generated. Everything leading up to "my" decision of what to do for lunch was influenced by something beforehand, even a food ad on the car radio for instance. So if God knows all this, and made you as well, could he not by taking all this into account, "determine" what you will do, have sovereignty over what you do, and at the same time not violate your free will as a creature. I say yes, and I'm afraid you free willers are pretending even this level of influence and dependence is not real. But it is. You are not a sovereign, independent individual. Now where I differ from some Calvinists is that I believe that there are some areas where God is indifferent of my choices and he truly leaves them to us. Though we are not autonomous I don't really believe God cares at all where I eat lunch and has left it totally to me and given me all I need to do that on my own. He has also made me aware that I am not to steal my lunch or take it away from someone weaker than me and if I do that I have willfully sinned and cannot blame God, nor can I claim that I have some inability to avoid doing such.

Dave not my philosophy just questions that logically come from what you have said, which is the calvinist position. That God determines/causes all things that happen. That does not leave any room for the person to make choices.

But we are not speaking of what you will have for lunch but whether a person can freely respond or whether all their thoughts and actions have been determined. The calvinist position is that they cannot as their response has already been determined. So if God has determined for a person to do something acting against a revealed command then why would they be judged as they would just be doing what God has determined for them to do.

Us free willers do not deny the various means that God has used to draw man to Himself we just do not accept the illogical view that calvinism presents.

 

[Silverhair]

So in Calvinistic determinism, if God, knowing someone is going to attempt something evil, decides to leave if be and let it unfold then he is still sovereignly in control but then is it his fault that it happens? Calvinistic theologians are not shy to say in a sense, yes, in that he could have intervened but didn't. Is God then guilty of what happened? They say no, because the evil action was done by the person by their own free will. You should applaud that because they are the ones recognizing free will. God does reserve the right to use evil people and once he judges that they are especially evil, he has the right to use them as he sees fit. If God raised up Pharoah to glorify God by being defeated it doesn't mean Pharoah would have been a nice fellow if God had left him alone. It just means that God raised him up for a public display of what happens when you oppose God. It could just as well been that the person who became Pharoah could have been a nasty shopkeeper who was cruel to his servants and family but never heard of. Calvinists don't say God makes anyone evil but evil people should beware - we will all glorify God, either by giving him praise and glory for saving us or by illustrating what happens to evil people.

Dave the calvinist does not say God knows but rather that He determines all things. That is the difference. If God determines that the person does something evil then who really chose to do the evil deed?

God does foreknow all that will happen as He in omniscient. Can and has He caused some things to happen yes. Does He cause all things to happen, no. He does not cause evil but He can use the evil that the men do.

The calvinist wants their version of God to determine all things and yet then want man to be responsible for the sins that God determined for them to do. But at the same time say that man has no ability to hear and believe the gospel message. Calvinism is illogical.

 

[DaveXR650]

But we are not speaking of what you will have for lunch but whether a person can freely respond or whether all their thoughts and actions have been determined. The calvinist position is that they cannot as their response has already been determined. So if God has determined for a person to do something acting against a revealed command then why would they be judged as they would just be doing what God has determined for them to do.

The principles still apply. Calvinism is a spectrum in this area and while some do say outright that God determines everything that is not the only valid way of Calvinist thinking on free will. I repeatedly give examples, point you to the Calvinist confessions, yet you keep demanding that I defend your straw man. I won't because I don't agree with that extreme version either, and it simply does not represent most of Calvinism. I even go further in that I am not a good Calvinist for the reason that I feel that men do have enough natural ability to at least reject the gospel with enough true knowledge to be held actually guilty for doing so. The guy we probably both would have access to and be familiar with in regards to this would be J.C. Ryle, who while he claimed to follow the doctrines of grace, was considered by many to be a hypothetical universalist. He did not believe in a functional limited atonement, nor do I, except in the sense that God knew who would be saved and thus had those specific people in mind when Christ died. I do believe grace is resistible, but I also feel myself, and have talked to too many others who had a feeling that they were being actively pursued by God and that he was set on saving them - so I would happily be wrong on that. But I don't know why it doesn't seem like that to everyone. I do not feel that I myself would have been saved with just being provided knowledge of the propositions of the gospel. There was some kind of drawing that was essential, and in our cases effectual - and that turns out to be exactly what the Westminster Confession of Faith states. So while theologically I am most comfortable with J.C. Ryle, I am also comfortable with much of Calvinism and Calvinist writings. That's not good enough for most on this site and so they dislike me almost as much as you.

The point here is that you cannot keep demanding that I defend the most extreme conclusions that can be arrived at by some Calvinists, which go far beyond what the confessions state, while at the same time refusing to accept what others say about your high regard for your free will, which, as you state it makes you the only true sovereign in all your spiritual life.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave the calvinist does not say God knows but rather that He determines all things.

The Calvinist does. R.C. Sproul even said that God either determines or allows all that happens. There is a difference and you don't have to accept that as truth but if you won't even acknowledge it is the Calvinist position then you are attempting to argue against a straw man you are setting up and there is no point in continuing.

 

[DaveXR650]

I disagree here. The attack on free-will by Calvinists is an attack that free-will exists.

That is not a true representation of the Calvinist position.

That free-will exists (the ability to make un-caused, totally automonous decisions) may or may not be logical. I believe it is. BUT the important thing is that this type of free-will is biblical (Prov 16) so regardless of logic we have to accept it.

This is where you are completely misguided. As long as you equate free will with this definition of it (un-caused, totally autonomous decisions) then no meaningful discussion is possible because that type of free will is not Biblical in men, except in matters of total indifference.

no supporter of free-will defines "free-will" as divorced from all influence (culture, worldview, personal ideologies, upbringing, etc).

This is shockingly incoherent as that is exactly what "uncaused, totally autonomous decisions" (your definition of free will) is!

The logical point is that men simply have free-will (we make our choices free of coercion). In terms of Scripture this means men are actually guilty (not just of doing evil but of being wicked) rather than a victim of divine circumstance.

This is exactly how the Calvinist theologians, and the confessions point out that "our choices are free of coercion". It's in some of the writings almost word for word to that effect.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC , @Silverhair
I disagree with Calvinism in that I do think that from scripture there are areas of human life that God has given man sovereignty over and therefore the explanations Calvinists give for events and for the conditions of human life on this earth can appear to be God's fault unless you are willing to painfully nuance everything. As a result, most of the Calvinists on here don't think highly of my views, either. In an effort to support their camp I see even some of the people I highly respect get drawn into the extreme positions of some of the radical Calvinists on here. So I think I'm going to take some time off, again.

I have been reading "Old Paths" by J.C. Ryle and theologically I seem most comfortable with his writing as compared to even the Puritans I like so much. It's pretty much where I stand, I guess. I am not drawn at all to the Calvinism as I see it argued on this site. I am thankful my background on the subject is from the Puritans and from Bonar, Spurgeon and Ryle. Take care.

 

[Silverhair]

The principles still apply. Calvinism is a spectrum in this area and while some do say outright that God determines everything that is not the only valid way of Calvinist thinking on free will. I repeatedly give examples, point you to the Calvinist confessions, yet you keep demanding that I defend your straw man. I won't because I don't agree with that extreme version either, and it simply does not represent most of Calvinism. I even go further in that I am not a good Calvinist for the reason that I feel that men do have enough natural ability to at least reject the gospel with enough true knowledge to be held actually guilty for doing so. The guy we probably both would have access to and be familiar with in regards to this would be J.C. Ryle, who while he claimed to follow the doctrines of grace, was considered by many to be a hypothetical universalist. He did not believe in a functional limited atonement, nor do I, except in the sense that God knew who would be saved and thus had those specific people in mind when Christ died. I do believe grace is resistible, but I also feel myself, and have talked to too many others who had a feeling that they were being actively pursued by God and that he was set on saving them - so I would happily be wrong on that. But I don't know why it doesn't seem like that to everyone. I do not feel that I myself would have been saved with just being provided knowledge of the propositions of the gospel. There was some kind of drawing that was essential, and in our cases effectual - and that turns out to be exactly what the Westminster Confession of Faith states. So while theologically I am most comfortable with J.C. Ryle, I am also comfortable with much of Calvinism and Calvinist writings. That's not good enough for most on this site and so they dislike me almost as much as you.

The point here is that you cannot keep demanding that I defend the most extreme conclusions that can be arrived at by some Calvinists, which go far beyond what the confessions state, while at the same time refusing to accept what others say about your high regard for your free will, which, as you state it makes you the only true sovereign in all your spiritual life.

Dave the standard view of calvinism is that man does not have a free will with which to hear the gospel message and believe it and trust in Christ Jesus for their salvation.

Look at what you said Dave " I even go further in that I am not a good Calvinist for the reason that I feel that men do have enough natural ability to at least reject the gospel with enough true knowledge to be held actually guilty for doing so."

If they have the ability to reject it do they not have the ability to accept it?

You then said "He {Ryle} did not believe in a functional limited atonement, nor do I, except in the sense that God knew who would be saved and thus had those specific people in mind when Christ died."

But the bible does not say that Dave. The bible says Christ died for the whole world 1Jn 2:2 and that Christ came that the world might be saved Joh 3:17. He was also the ransom for all not just some 1Ti 2:6 for every man Heb_2:9. Knowing all this then how can you think that God only had some in mind.

Dave you are wrong when you think I do not like you. I do not understand how you can read the word of God and then come to the conclusions that you do.

I am not asking you to defend all calvinists but rather just the views that you hold.

As for the WCF/LBCF or any other confession, they may or may not hold biblical truth so I do not depend on them for my theological views.

As for who is sovereign in my life, that would be God and that is why I freely trust His word and because of that I have a high regard for the free will that He has given to all men.

 

[Silverhair]

The Calvinist does. R.C. Sproul even said that God either determines or allows all that happens. There is a difference and you don't have to accept that as truth but if you won't even acknowledge it is the Calvinist position then you are attempting to argue against a straw man you are setting up and there is no point in continuing.

If God allows man to make real choices then man is just exercising his God given free will.

But we also see that R C Sproul also said not a molecule moves that God has not directed because if it did then God would not be sovereign.

So Sproul's comments show that he did not think man had a free will.

The calvinist position is found in the DoG/TULIP. Those positions stand or fall together. You have said yourself that you do not hold to all those views. If memory serves you said you were a one point calvinist.

 

[JonC]

That is not a true representation of the Calvinist position.

This is where you are completely misguided. As long as you equate free will with this definition of it (un-caused, totally autonomous decisions) then no meaningful discussion is possible because that type of free will is not Biblical in men, except in matters of total indifference.

This is shockingly incoherent as that is exactly what "uncaused, totally autonomous decisionsThis is shockingly incoherent as that is exactly what "uncaused, totally autonomous decisions" (your definition of free will) is!

This is exactly how the Calvinist theologians, and the confessions point out that "our choices are free of coercion". It's in some of the writings almost word for word to that effect.

This is my point.

Those who advocate that free-will exists do so within a biblical context (not libertarian free will but free will...the ability to choose without coercion).

Calvinists use "double-speak" to create philosophical division.

Libertarian free-will is a theory that man can make choices free from any influence.

Free-will is more general (simply that man chooses of his own accord).

This is not uninfluenced.

 

[Psalty]

This is my point.

Those who advocate that free-will exists do so within a biblical context (not libertarian free will but free will...the ability to choose without coercion).

Calvinists use "double-speak" to create philosophical division.

Libertarian free-will is a theory that man can make choices free from any influence.

Free-will is more general (simply that man chooses of his own accord).

This is not uninfluenced.

This is why I dont like the term free will. I prefer “choice”.

“Could have chosen otherwise” seems to capture it well.

 

[DaveXR650]

Those who advocate that free-will exists do so within a biblical context (not libertarian free will but free will...the ability to choose without coercion).

Free-will is more general (simply that man chooses of his own accord).

I agree with what you say here. The problem is that that is the Calvinist position.

Libertarian free-will is a theory that man can make choices free from any influence.

And the problem here is that I think that's what the free willers on here insist upon officially, but they don't really think through the implications of what influence on your free will is and what it feels like. It really is changing your free will without your consent. The will, and the perception of you doing what you have decided, and the influences, because they are upon your will itself, are much more difficult to differentiate than what some on here make it - and that goes for both sides. John Owen and some of the other Calvinists who were also preachers go into this in detail. I give up.

 

[Paleouss]

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...

(Deu 30:19 NKJV) 19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

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

 

[Silverhair]

It really is changing your free will without your consent.

Dave what you said is illogical.

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

I have said a number of times that this is what we mean by free will and you still do not seem to accept it.

That is biblical free will, the ability to make choices and calvinsm denies this.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave what you said is illogical.

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.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is why I dont like the term free will. I prefer “choice”.

“Could have chosen otherwise” seems to capture it well.

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.

 

[Ascetic X]

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.

This logic is spinning around in circles.

Our will does change when we ponder the expected results of choice options.

We can have multiple contradictory wills within us.

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. We give preference to the will to lose weight and thus not eat the cake.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

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.