Dominion vs determinism 2

[Psalty]

Jon. I was getting ready to answer @Psalty on the same point. You are right. You always had the ability to freely choose. Please understand that. In Calvinist theology, when done right, they do not say that one cannot freely choose as an absolute inability. What they are saying is that we do not freely will, on our own, to come to Christ, because our own free will doesn't want to.

Can I prove that? Well, I can show you the things none other than John Owen wrote regarding this. He wrote that the central problem for us is our free will. Not that is doesn't exist. Calvinists, even more modern ones including R. C. Sproul, say that our inability is real, but that it is moral, not absolute.

Now the key here is two things. One, when a Calvinist says you couldn't have chosen otherwise, what they are saying is that you couldn't have chosen otherwise and have that choice also have been what you most wanted to do, which again, is the real definition of free will. The reason being that there is only one "what you most wanted to do" for a given decision point. Yes, you could have chosen something else, if you had wanted to - but that could not have been your number one choice at that time. Where you guys are messing up is that you look back and realize that another choice may have been better, and that you could have done that, and you could - but at the time you in truth did not want to do that as your primary and only most desirable thing. What you did is what won out as your own free choice. The fact that you could have made a different choice is really hypothetical because once again - the choice you did in fact make, if it was truly your choice at the time, is the only thing you could have done - and still had that been your choice. To choose differently would have required that you willed differently. When a Calvinist points that out do not claim that he is saying that you were blocked or coerced by God from all other choices. All he is saying is that you have to own the fact that your free choice was yours, and that it depended upon your will.

R.C. Sproul went into this with the example from Alice in Wonderland. And he pointed out that the only time the above is not true is in situations where the choice is of no value, in which case it doesn't matter and does indeed become a matter of whim. Indeed in that case you truly could just as well have chosen either alternative because since it didn't matter anyway, you had no reason to evaluate and determine a choice. To go left is just as good as to go right, as he said.

I think the most obvious challenge is the one staring you in the face:

According to this philosophy, if people turn to God, it is simply because they willed to and chose to.

 

[DaveXR650]

According to this philosophy, if people turn to God, it is simply because they willed to and chose to.

That will work. And it is sufficient. Spurgeon said he was saved as an Arminian. And it wasn't until he starting thinking about why he decided to come to Christ that he started to think about some of these other issues. There really is not a requirement that one do this type of inquiry, just like there is no requirement that you try to figure out how an automatic transmission works if you just want to drive somewhere. But this is a Calvinist/Arminian debate forum and it is assumed that anyone who thinks it's worthless to discuss that would go find something else to do. You think it's worthwhile or else you wouldn't be here. But if we were sitting around in church and getting everyone else upset with this stuff I would hope one of the elders would tell us to knock it off.

 

[Psalty]

That will work. And it is sufficient. Spurgeon said he was saved as an Arminian. And it wasn't until he starting thinking about why he decided to come to Christ that he started to think about some of these other issues. There really is not a requirement that one do this type of inquiry, just like there is no requirement that you try to figure out how an automatic transmission works if you just want to drive somewhere. But this is a Calvinist/Arminian debate forum and it is assumed that anyone who thinks it's worthless to discuss that would go find something else to do. You think it's worthwhile or else you wouldn't be here. But if we were sitting around in church and getting everyone else upset with this stuff I would hope one of the elders would tell us to knock it off.

I do, and I certainly think understanding God and His character is worthy of discussion.

At this point I am viewing this as a new learning opportunity. If I have to go with your afformentioned view of will, Im not clear on how you think this leads to determinism (leaving the whole theology side out of it).

Do you only get to determinism via biblical prooftexting, or do you have a philosophical argument for how you arrive at this versus everything just being will based?

 

[SovereignGrace]

This is the other side that is murky.

I thought he was spot on. Here’s the thing, how we arrive at what we believe. Man is never in a neutral position, as they stand in one of two camps, a) with God or b) against God. There are no neutral positions, and I’m not saying you don’t believe like this, just stating it to present our case. Those who stand against God don’t want anything to do with Him in their fallen in Adam condition. As I’ve posted Romans 8:5-8 before. They are at enmity (have an ill-will towards) with God. And in this condition want nothing to do with Him. Until He changes their fallen in Adam condition they will never seek Him.

 

[Silverhair]

when a Calvinist says you couldn't have chosen otherwise, what they are saying is that you couldn't have chosen otherwise and have that choice also have been what you most wanted to do, which again, is the real definition of free will.

Dave this has to be the most illogical thing I have seen you post. You are trying to equate the action of choosing with the result of them choosing.

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). The fact that the person chose to trust in Christ or that they chose to reject Him is the free will choice. What that chose to do is the result of them exercising their free will.

I asked AI to define biblical free will. Here is the result

Biblically, free will is the ability given by God to humans to make choices independently, allowing them to decide between good and evil, as seen in various scriptures like Deuteronomy 30:19, which emphasizes the importance of choosing life or death. This concept highlights moral responsibility, as individuals are accountable for their decisions and their consequences.
mstarqtown.org learn.ligonier.org

It would seem that even ligonier.org does not agree with your definition of free will.

 

[Silverhair]

What Calvinists are saying is that the choice you actually make in a situation is the free will choice of what you most wanted to do. And the problem here is your will. You must do according to your will or else you are not doing according to your will and thus your choice was not free.

Of course the choice you made is the one you made.

Eat the cake or not eat the cake those are your options. The choice you make is the exercising of you free will in making the choice.

The fact you did not eat the cake is the result of that free will choice not the free will choice itself.

I must say that the calvinist argument is the most illogical argument I have ever seen. What they are saying is because you made a free will choice then you could not have made a free will choice.

But lets go with your calvinist version. If the choice to sin was not a free choice then it must have been determined. But if it was the person that determined the choice to sin then that points back to a free choice being made by the person. But if it was not determined by the person then it had to be someone else that determined the choice. If God determined that the person would sin then why is the person judged for the sin but the bible says we are judged for our sin so that points back to man having an actual ability to choose.

Which is just what we see is the actual definition of free will.

"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."

 

[Silverhair]

I thought he was spot on. Here’s the thing, how we arrive at what we believe. Man is never in a neutral position, as they stand in one of two camps, a) with God or b) against God. There are no neutral positions, and I’m not saying you don’t believe like this, just stating it to present our case. Those who stand against God don’t want anything to do with Him in their fallen in Adam condition. As I’ve posted Romans 8:5-8 before. They are at enmity (have an ill-will towards) with God. And in this condition want nothing to do with Him. Until He changes their fallen in Adam condition they will never seek Him.

So your saying that if God does not change their condition they will never seek God. So since most do not seek God then it is God who is responsible for them not doing so. Which then makes you ask why does God condemn them for not seeking Him since it is impossible for them to do so as He has not changed their condition.

 

[Deacon]

Philosophy is fun. I am not sure we benefit, but it is something I have enjoyed at times.

Grumbling... and thinking of you as I'm reading a philosophy text this morning rather than working on next Sunday's lesson.

A rather light introduction to Philosophy that I picked up in February and put on my TBR pile.

Dolores G. Morris, Believing Philosophy, A Guide to Becoming a Christian Philosopher. 2021

Rob

 

[JonC]

Why would it be dishonest if they continually try to explain the difference in their writings?

Because they are the only ones who seriously entertain libertarian free-will (in arguing against it) as opposing writings do not even entertain the thing they are writing against.

 

[Ben1445]

I thought he was spot on. Here’s the thing, how we arrive at what we believe. Man is never in a neutral position, as they stand in one of two camps, a) with God or b) against God. There are no neutral positions, and I’m not saying you don’t believe like this, just stating it to present our case. Those who stand against God don’t want anything to do with Him in their fallen in Adam condition. As I’ve posted Romans 8:5-8 before. They are at enmity (have an ill-will towards) with God. And in this condition want nothing to do with Him. Until He changes their fallen in Adam condition they will never seek Him.

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

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is the other side that is murky.

What sort of reply is that? Most of my post was the word of God. If you think I'm interpreting it wrongly, it's up to you to show me how and where.

 

[DaveXR650]

Do you only get to determinism via biblical prooftexting, or do you have a philosophical argument for how you arrive at this versus everything just being will based?

I am not deterministic in the sense that when I come across a verse that says "choose you this day whom you will serve" I believe it exactly as it is written. The choice they were given was real and absolute as proposed. Their decision was not determined for them in any way that coerced their minds or wills. But what you have to understand, which people are having trouble with on here, is that Calvinism also teaches this.

Back in post 66, 70, and 77, @Martin Marprelate explained this using different verses. I would reread those and for this reason. To even discuss these things you have to understand that theology is an attempt by man to explain and understand that which we cannot reconcile with just scripture. Acts chapter 13 for example, you have those being saved who are clearly "ordained" to be saved. In the same section you have Paul telling people "I had to come to you first, but since you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life I am going to the gentiles". We either have a contradiction here, or else we need some theology.

I believe in determinism in the sense that I believe God, with his power and wisdom, has created a world in which he has given man a certain amount of real authority and sovereignty, which he has balanced with his overall will and plans for his creation. Along with this is that he has in his own wisdom, allowed a certain amount of suffering, which again, is occurring within the bounds he has set by taking into account man's tendency for destruction because of the real free will given him, and also the fact that God does have the right to determine whether all this put together results in the world where God gets the amount of glory he desires, and man acts within the bounds set for him.

That's a mouthful but bottom line is that in reality we all believe in a similar fashion to some degree. If you pray for someone to get saved who has already heard the gospel - by definition you are not leaving them sovereign in their own free will. Yet they themselves have to come to Christ. Yet God knows whether they will or not - which is impossible if they always have the power of contrary choice, which free willers demand. All this requires theology if you want to resolve these issues.

 

[Ben1445]

What sort of reply is that?

I ran out of time.

And the details are not clear on this side of the equation.

 

[DaveXR650]

Because they are the only ones who seriously entertain libertarian free-will (in arguing against it) as opposing writings do not even entertain the thing they are writing against.

I just think you are wrong on this. People repeatedly and meticulously lay out the step by step the logic of how men arrive at a free will choice, and prove that all choices by men are the results of previous influences. You can either refute this meticulously, step by step, or accept it. But you just want to dismiss all their work with a wave of your hand. That won't do, and those of you who do that I see no reason to keep just going back and forth with.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you pray for someone to get saved who has already heard the gospel - by definition you are not leaving them sovereign in their own free will.

Yes indeed! By praying for the lost everyone is acknowledging that 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb,' which is good because that's what the Bible says.

 

[DaveXR650]

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). The fact that the person chose to trust in Christ or that they chose to reject Him is the free will choice. What that chose to do is the result of them exercising their free will.

This will do in a practical sense, just like you could explain how an automatic transmission works by saying "you press the gas to go". And there's nothing wrong with that. But in the case of salvation, you might end up like Spurgeon, who asked why he came to those decisions, and then more thought was required.

I asked AI to define biblical free will. Here is the result

There's a 4 wheel drive site on Youtube run by an engineer. He said AI in suspension knowledge was about at the level of the clerk at Auto Zone. I would say A1 on theology is about at the level of my cousin Billy Bob.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The extract from the confessions does not change what the DoG/TULIP make clear. Man has no free will under the calvinist view.

Show me where mans free will is found in the DoG/TULIP.

I've heard of a dog rose, but never a dog tulip. Or are you thinking of Dogtanian?
The Doctrines of Grace are found in the confessions, you silly man! TULIP is just a mnemonic that someone or other made up. I would prefer "effective atonement" but TUEIP isn't quite as catchy.

But the fact is that Man has free will under the Calvinist view. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is the case.

 

[Ben1445]

At last a sensible question! Thank you! 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' That's in the Bible and therefore non-negotiable.
But men and women will not call on the name of the Lord. John 3:19. 'And this is the condemnation; that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.'

But to use this as a proof text you must ignore the following verse that says that some men come to the light. And the previous verses that mention those who believe on Him.

Romans 3:11. 'There is none who seeks after God.'

But God has already sought after man.
Romans 10:18
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

1 Cor. 2:14. 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.....'

this is taken from Paul’s address to the church in Corinth telling them not to be carnally minded. It doesn’t mean that people cannot be convicted by the Holy Spirit.

Jer. 13:23. 'Can the Ethiopean change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to doing evil.'

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing,
and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
and we all do fade as a leaf;
and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

But all of this does not mean that believing in Christ is a good work. It is no work at all.

Sin is a problem. Man doesn’t need sin to be explained. He is familiar with it. He doesn’t enjoy it and knows that it creates more problems. He doesn’t have to hear about the Saviour to figure out he is in a bad place.

The non-elect cannot call upon the Lord, not because He prevents them, but because they have wicked, unbelieving hearts.

But these are the people who need salvation.
The believing hearts need not call for salvation again and again.

Therefore God, in His great mercy, has chosen a great crowd of men and women, from every nation, tribe, people and tongue, for salvation, and has opened their hearts to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Titus 3:3-7. For we ourselves [Paul and Titus] were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts amd pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.' [see also Ephesians 2:1-10]

I don’t have any problem with these verses. They don’t tell me that I was changed before salvation either.

Through God's mercy and the new birth, men and women who, of their own free will, rejected God, now, of their own free will, renewed by the Holy Spirit, trust in Him and receive salvation.

Salvation and the new birth are simultaneous.
Jesus answered for the sin and the consequence of sin at the same time.
It doesn’t make sense to say that God removed the power of death but not the cause of death so that I could be able to receive Him.
Both sin and death are answered at once (though not completely at salvation. We still wait for the redemption of our bodies)
So we are buried with Him first, our guilt nailed to the cross, and after sin is removed the consequence of sin is removed. I cannot be regenerated and counted a sinner at the same time.
The natural man must be buried before there can be any resurrection.

Very quickly, hyper-Clavinists believe that the Gospel should not be preached to all, but only to "sensible sinners." Well, if they were sensible they wouldn't be sinners!

I definitely see this point and agree with you.

Calvinists, including Calvin himself and A.W. Pink, believe that the Gospel should be preached freely to all, and sinners tols that if they will repent and trust in Christ, they will be saved.

And in this respect I don’t disagree with you.
But the details that have been committed to Christ seem to have resurrection before death and life before salvation.

Sorry for the delay.

 

[Psalty]

I am not deterministic in the sense that when I come across a verse that says "choose you this day whom you will serve" I believe it exactly as it is written. The choice they were given was real and absolute as proposed. Their decision was not determined for them in any way that coerced their minds or wills. But what you have to understand, which people are having trouble with on here, is that Calvinism also teaches this.

Back in post 66, 70, and 77, @Martin Marprelate explained this using different verses. I would reread those and for this reason. To even discuss these things you have to understand that theology is an attempt by man to explain and understand that which we cannot reconcile with just scripture. Acts chapter 13 for example, you have those being saved who are clearly "ordained" to be saved. In the same section you have Paul telling people "I had to come to you first, but since you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life I am going to the gentiles". We either have a contradiction here, or else we need some theology.

I believe in determinism in the sense that I believe God, with his power and wisdom, has created a world in which he has given man a certain amount of real authority and sovereignty, which he has balanced with his overall will and plans for his creation. Along with this is that he has in his own wisdom, allowed a certain amount of suffering, which again, is occurring within the bounds he has set by taking into account man's tendency for destruction because of the real free will given him, and also the fact that God does have the right to determine whether all this put together results in the world where God gets the amount of glory he desires, and man acts within the bounds set for him.

That's a mouthful but bottom line is that in reality we all believe in a similar fashion to some degree. If you pray for someone to get saved who has already heard the gospel - by definition you are not leaving them sovereign in their own free will. Yet they themselves have to come to Christ. Yet God knows whether they will or not - which is impossible if they always have the power of contrary choice, which free willers demand. All this requires theology if you want to resolve these issues.

Oh, I get that argumentation. I was talking about your comparibalism philosophical argument about any choice that happens is a choice that had to happen. Maybe we are at the end of that argumentation.

Since you are suggesting Martin wrote things well regarding compatibalism, Ill ask you the same questions I asked Martin. No compatibalist will answer these.

1. God is viewed as a loving God because he saves some by His choice. But He is the one that decrees depravity, so how do you maintain any sense of free will on captibalsim?

2. Compatibalists say that people are choosing, but they affirm Irresistable Grace. They will quote verses about believing to affirm choice but conveniently leave out their underpinning cause of belief: That God has changed their will.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings Dave. I hope you had a blessed Easter Sunday.

I am going backwards with your quotes.

Or, does he tend to consider it foolishness.

When you use the word "foolishness", I am reminded of 1:Cor 2:14.

(1Co 2:14 NKJV) 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

I do not agree with a common, but not exclusive, Calvinistic interpretation of 1Cor 2:14.

Something that is frequently overlooked regarding 1Cor 2:14 is that the context of the verse is about the “wisdom among those who are mature” (1Cor 2:6). This context, which is largely ignored and the context in which the verse 1Corinthians 2:14 refers, is very important in understanding what Paul was actually saying. This context of “mature” wisdom is like the concept that Paul develops earlier in 1 Corinthians of “solid food” (1Cor 3:2, Heb 5:12, 14) that is contrasted against the wisdom for “newborn babes” (1Pet 2:2) , i.e., “milk” (1Cor 3:1-3, Heb 5:12, 14).

(1) Spiritual milk is for those new in Christ and the carnal minded (1Cor 3:1-3, Heb 5:12, Heb 5:14).
(2). One should eventually grow to a “wisdom among those who are mature” (1Cor 2:6). This kind of maturing leads to the digestion of spiritual solid foods (1Cor 3:2, Heb 5:12, Heb 5:14).
(3). These spiritual solid foods are not digestible by the natural man (1Cor 2:14), i.e., the carnal minded.
(4) Since babes in Christ are still like the carnal minded (1Cor 3:2-3), i.e., natural man, they cannot yet digest spiritually solid foods.
(5) Therefore, if you are stuck in being like babes in Christ and not maturing to more solid foods, then you, like the natural man, cannot digest and understand the spiritually mature foods.

So that which is "foolishness" (1Cor 2:14) to the natural man is the "wisdom of the mature"(1Cor 2:6). Thus, the carnal minded, or natural man, can/does receive spiritual milk (1`Cor 3:1-3) (a perfect parable for this is the Parable of the Sower).

Can he naturally desire to even look into these things.

I'm going to first say, no. But my reason is different than most, I think. In Romans 1 it says that "what may be known of God is manifest in them" (Rom 1:19). It specifically states that what can be known is "manifest in them". The key words for me are "manifest in them". Of course it goes on to say that this makes man without excuse. So to me every man is either presented God through creation, whether they seek him or not, or presented the gospel of Christ.

In other words, I don't hold that the natural man "naturally" seeks God on their own. They are present God through their creational experience constantly. From this creational experience, which might include the gospel being heard or presented directly, they accept or deny within. Something the Spirit knows for it searches the hearts of man.

Does man have the innate ability to recognize and "see" the value of the choice of life or death that is put before him?

To me the innate ability that I would say that man has is contingent upon light. In total darkness does man's innate ability allow them to see the choice...no. When some light is shown into their lives (which is frequently if we use the two examples above), for however short a time, does man's innate ability allow them to see the choice...yes.



Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2:1-6)