Dominion vs determinism 2

[Silverhair]

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.

Why did the person make the choice they did? There are two options 1} the choice was determined for them or 2} they evaluated the information they had and made what they considered the best choice.

God can present and use various means to draw a person to Him but in the end the person has to make the choice.

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.

I agree that AI is not something to be relied upon but what you seem to have missed is that the response could have been written by anyone that read the word of God.

"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."

Their ability to make a choice was no different than those we see in Act 13:48. the gentiles heard the same message that the Jews rejected but they chose to believe it and glorified the Lord and were saved.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

You said the DoG/TULIP is found in your confessions which you then trust. But they are not found in scripture as they contradict the word of God.

So you silly man why do you believe them?

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings brother Ben. Hope and blessings to you

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

My issue here is more semantic, I suppose. The problem I have with the word "free-will". Not that I can't in my own mind make distinctions and limits. But the term free-will seems to have a million definitions. In other words, the use of the word "free" with "will" seems to be distracting when talking about the lost sinner and whether God died for all. Paul particularly says we are/were slaves to sin, slaves to uncleanliness, slaves to corruption. So when one postulates the term "free-will" and tries to apply it to the biblical theme of being a "slave". Well, it seems out of place. If one is a slave then logic would seem to want to tell us we are not then also free (the word just seems to get in the way of the message)


Peace to you brother

 

[Ben1445]

Greetings brother Ben. Hope and blessings to you

Hello. There is no greater blessing than living in the hope of our risen Saviour.

My issue here is more semantic, I suppose. The problem I have with the word "free-will". Not that I can't in my own mind make distinctions and limits. But the term free-will seems to have a million definitions. In other words, the use of the word "free" with "will" seems to be distracting when talking about the lost sinner and whether God died for all. Paul particularly says we are/were slaves to sin, slaves to uncleanliness, slaves to corruption. So when one postulates the term "free-will" and tries to apply it to the biblical theme of being a "slave". Well, it seems out of place. If one is a slave then logic would seem to want to tell us we are not then also free (the word just seems to get in the way of the message)


Peace to you brother

But even slaves run away. Paul and Onesimus are familiar with this topic.
There are definitely limitations on free will. I cannot free will myself into another universe or some other physical existence. But given the limitations of the universe we are in, Jesus came to us and brought salvation to men. He is the Saviour of men because He did for men what they could not do for themselves. So having spoiled principalities and powers and ordinances and having made a show of it openly, I don’t see coming to a calling Christ as being outside the realm of a legitimate free will. If the words of Christ are come unto me, then it is within the right of even the slave to come to Christ.

 

[Psalty]

Hello. There is no greater blessing than living in the hope of our risen Saviour.


But even slaves run away. Paul and Onesimus are familiar with this topic.
There are definitely limitations on free will. I cannot free will myself into another universe or some other physical existence. But given the limitations of the universe we are in, Jesus came to us and brought salvation to men. He is the Saviour of men because He did for men what they could not do for themselves. So having spoiled principalities and powers and ordinances and having made a show of it openly, I don’t see coming to a calling Christ as being outside the realm of a legitimate free will. If the words of Christ are come unto me, then it is within the right of even the slave to come to Christ.

Stated another way:

Without the cross, humans can have as much free will to be saved as possible. They still cannot save themselves.

It was only Gods choice to offer Christ at the cross that brings salvation to them. All Gods glory, none to man. Man still has to choose to receive that gift and accept the reconciliation, otherwise the cost remains paid but unreconciled.

 

[JonC]

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 prove my point.

The choice is freely made, but men are not uninfluenced.

Scripture supports these free will (a mind set on the flesg desires the things of the flesh, cannot please God, their decisions belong to them.

If you choose to argue against free will then you have to argue against how the adherents define free will.

It is the same for those who choose to argue against Calvinistic predetermination. I am sure you probably have recognized some arguing using their own definitions (a straw man argument). You are doing the same to an opposing view.

 

[DaveXR650]

When you use the word "foolishness", I am reminded of 1:Cor 2:14.
I do not agree with a common, but not exclusive, Calvinistic interpretation of 1Cor 2:14.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I was thinking of that passage when I used those words. I do think that "natural" man refers to an unbeliever and then in chapter 3 he goes on to talk about the carnal, immature Christians. But still, your overall point has some merit in that does a Calvinist go too far if he says that God is arbitrarily and willfully withholding enough light from some natural men when had it not been withheld, they would have been saved. Or, is some light available to all, at least all who hear the gospel, and is it enough that thus they can be considered guilty of rejecting the light they had?

Note: the above is different than what a strict Calvinist says. A strict Calvinist says that we are all truly guilty. If we receive no light, no invitation to repent, no news from God, our guilt is still real and our own fault. So the standard Calvinist reply is "don't argue against God. He can save who he wants and damn who he wants and do it justly". This is where I'm having some trouble. And the reason is, I don't find that this is what God does, even though I do agree that he certainly has the right to act as such. I'm not speaking here as a Calvinist, nor especially as a theologian (because I am not), but just as a Christian layman.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why did the person make the choice they did? There are two options 1} the choice was determined for them or 2} they evaluated the information they had and made what they considered the best choice.

God can present and use various means to draw a person to Him but in the end the person has to make the choice.

I don't think Calvinism has a problem with this view of free will. I think what Calvinism does though is claim that the will is such that left to itself, it tends to move toward sin and away from God. You seem to be claiming that there is sufficient residual good in a natural will so that with the right information the person can indeed make a saving decision to call upon the Lord. From that people have moved off in all sorts of directions and degrees. Some Calvinists say that therefore you must actually be born again before you come to Christ (you were formally dead in sin). Some say there is a definite supernatural enlightenment of the will and mind that is overwhelmingly decisive. Others agree but say that this enlightenment is only persuasive and enabling and can and often is resisted. There is a whole range of thought on this.

All I am saying for sure in this is that while you are right in that "in the end the person has to make the choice", it is also true that the choice can only be what the person most wants to do, if that indeed was his true choice. And then a Calvinist will say, and be correct in saying, that with our natural wills then we are in serious trouble because how can a will that is described as defective, set on the flesh, evil or even dead to Christ, will us to make the right decision. The hardest part to understand here is that this horrible mess of a will is our will. It essentially is us! And thus it is our fault and our true guilt.

Now, I admit that it seems to me at least that there are some Calvinists who almost relish in this. They seem to love the fact that God would be perfectly just in just sending us all to Hell, and by the way, he's going to do that to most and they can't wait. But that is not what I read from scripture or from most Calvinists. John Knox praying "give me Scotland or I die" or Bunyan in "Come and Welcome Jesus Christ" are not doing this. Same with countless other Calvinists preachers. They understand, it seems to me that while the diagnosis of the state of our wills is fatally bad, and that God truly would be just in sending us all to Hell - he doesn't. Instead I think he does much more that we realize to help men and save them. And whether the Calvinistic theology best explains this or not I do know that much more is being done for us than Provision of the means of salvation and then leaving to use the application of those means based only upon our wills.

 

[Silverhair]

You seem to be claiming that there is sufficient residual good in a natural will so that with the right information the person can indeed make a saving decision to call upon the Lord.

It is not just me that is claiming that, we see that in scripture.

If there were no sufficient residual good in a natural will then these verses would be meaningless.

Isa 55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near.

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.

Act 17:27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

All I am saying for sure in this is that while you are right in that "in the end the person has to make the choice", it is also true that the choice can only be what the person most wants to do, if that indeed was his true choice.

What the man wants most to do is what he has chosen to do or he would not have chosen to do it.

If the choice was pre determined for him or he was forced to do it then was it want he most wanted to do, NO, it was the choice of someone else?

I do know that much more is being done for us than Provision of the means of salvation and then leaving to use the application of those means based only upon our wills.

God does provide the means of knowing Him and is active in convicting of sins but He does not force anyone to love Him or trust in Him.

No matter how you want to try and avoid it the answer always comes back to the person having to make the choice if he is to be held responsible for the choice made.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is not just me that is claiming that, we see that in scripture.

If there were no sufficient residual good in a natural will then these verses would be meaningless.

Isa 55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near.

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.

Act 17:27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

One. Before I start the "on the other hand" let me just say that yes, I too notice plenty of scripture that indicates men having to have an ability to do what is asked or the passage makes no sense. I agree. On the other hand, those passages don't say that God is not working in the hearts of any of those addressed above who actually do obey. In addition, there are scriptures describing self hardening, God induced hardening, delusions and mental instability as a judgement of God, a giving over by God and so on. There are also cases of God specifically seeking out and confronting individuals and groups - with a seeming knowledge that those addressed will respond. So it's not conclusive. Both are going on and theology tries to put an explanation as to how these various scriptures work in systematic harmony together. I don't think any theology school is completely perfect in this, to be honest.

What the man wants most to do is what he has chosen to do or he would not have chosen to do it.

You got it. And because this will of ours is the actual substance of who it is we are, then our choice is blameable to us. Where the theology gets difficult is if God for instance, enables me to see and understand the value of salvation and the darkness of my sin then that must affect my will in some way. The hard part is, does that mean that I now for sure will come to Christ or does it mean I now have the ability to come to Christ but may indeed still decide I love my sinful life enough to still reject Christ. And again, if God supernaturally gives me enlightened understanding of my situation and if it is important enough to be decisive what amount of this is given and why isn't "enough" so to speak given to everyone. At this point we either say God is sovereign so get over it or say enough light is given and the rest is up to you. Neither is completely satisfactory to me. I honestly don't know what to tell you. Really smart and spiritual people have looked into this for hundreds of years and they have not figured it out either.

 

[DaveXR650]

You prove my point.

The choice is freely made, but men are not uninfluenced.

Scripture supports these free will (a mind set on the flesg desires the things of the flesh, cannot please God, their decisions belong to them.

If you choose to argue against free will then you have to argue against how the adherents define free will.

It is the same for those who choose to argue against Calvinistic predetermination. I am sure you probably have recognized some arguing using their own definitions (a straw man argument). You are doing the same to an opposing view.

Like John Owen says, what tends to happen is that our will is so closely linked to the very essence of our selves that you cannot really distinguish the two. What free will advocates do and you even do above is that you want to have a reserve stand alone thing called "your own free will" which somehow is always standing above and evaluating the various motivations and information presented to you. What I am saying is that in truth, your free will is that combination of the various motivations and information you have received - and there is no ability for a "you" to stand supreme and fairly and accurately filter all that and come up with a truly independent decision. That is what the myth of true free will is. Luther and Edwards both demolish that in their respective works.

In terms of our discussions on here, if my assessment of free will is correct then a Calvinistic view of how salvation can be "all of God" even in the taking of the decision to commit to Christ, is not a problem and indeed, God can be completely sovereign in one's decision and still allow for a full exercise of one's free will in coming to Christ. But this is opposed by many who feel they must reserve a little something at the very apex of our will, which is neither good or evil and is able to properly reflect and evaluate all things - or else they are uncomfortable with the implications. I understand and I feel it too, that's why I share what I do with @Silverhair above. Unfortunately, such a wise self motivated decision arbiter in reality does not exist no matter how much we naturally want it to be so. Yet, in a way by definition, it will always appear to be there whenever we decide to do anything.

 

[Paleouss]

Hello. There is no greater blessing than living in the hope of our risen Saviour.

Amen!

But even slaves run away. Paul and Onesimus are familiar with this topic.

I would like to recognize that my critique of the term "free" will is a semantic one in which I'd rather use biblical themed words when coming up with a cohesive theology rather than philosophy words mixed with biblical words (at least on key topics). I don't have a problem with people who mix them. I have just found that the mixing sometimes leads to confusion and error.

For transparency, I am not a Calvinist.

Regarding your quote, my thought is...but in the biblical sense slaves of sin don't just run away in the Bible. At least not in any stories within the Bible that I know. The slaves are freed by God's power and accomplishments and are led out of captivity by a metaphoric Christ figure.

I'm not denying a moral culpability of accepting or denying the gospel. Only that Christ had to come first, leave us a record of His word, use vessels to sow that word...before any offer reached its accept or deny point.

There are definitely limitations on free will.

In the sense in which we are speaking, i.e., accepting or rejecting the gospel. The Son of God had to have a Cosmic Triumph victory (1Cor 15:24-28, Rom 8:20-23, Psa 8:6, Heb 2:8, Eph 6:12, 1Pet 3:22, Col 2:15). Mankind are prisoners, slaves in a foreign empire under the power and dominion of darkness. We need a Conquerer that puts under foot the power of our captors and a Savior to lead us out of the empire of darkness in which we are chained and enslaved.

Without the Son of God's victory over the Devil (1John 3:8, Heb 2:14, Col 1:13-14), the power of sin (Rom 8:3, Rom 6: 6-7,14), the power of death (1Cor 15:26, Heb 2:14), the dominion of all principalities and powers (Eph 6:12, 1Pet 3:22, Col 2:15,1Pet 4:11, 1Pet 5:11, Jude 1:25, Rev 1:6), and the overcoming of the power and dominion of Hades over the dead (Rom 14:8-9, Act 2:36, Rom 6:9, 1Cor 15:55, 1Pet 3:19, Matt 16:18, Luke 16:23, Act 2:27,31, 1Cor 15:55, Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20: 13-14, Rom 6:9)..... without this victory our faith is in vain (1Cor 15:14).

If the words of Christ are come unto me, then it is within the right of even the slave to come to Christ.

A couple of points
1. We are/were all slaves.
2. I'm not sure I'd call it a "right". That word seems misplaced. I would agree that it would be representative of who God is, that is just. If in fact every man was truly "free" (there, I used your word. lol)


Peace to you Ben

 

[Silverhair]

I don't think any theology school is completely perfect in this, to be honest.

I agree and that is why we have so many varying views out there.

Where the theology gets difficult is if God for instance, enables me to see and understand the value of salvation and the darkness of my sin then that must affect my will in some way. The hard part is, does that mean that I now for sure will come to Christ or does it mean I now have the ability to come to Christ but may indeed still decide I love my sinful life enough to still reject Christ.

God has provided the information, the drawing, the conviction but as we see in reality some, not all, will respond in faith. In fact most will not as they just want too do what they want to do.

I think that difference is in how the person approaches theology. Some see man as so bad that they cannot choose God and I see God as so loving that He will allow anyone to come to Him.

I think that Christ makes it clear that salvation is open to all
Mat 11:28 "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

But He also said that some will just no surrender their pride or desire to do their own thing.
Joh 5:40 "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

At this point we either say God is sovereign so get over it or say enough light is given and the rest is up to you. Neither is completely satisfactory to me.

Is God sovereign YES can He do whatever He wants YES.

So why do you think it is an either or situation? Either God is sovereign or man can make real choices.

His being sovereign does not require that He determine all things. Why can this sovereign God not grant His creatures the ability to make real choices.

If He’s not allowed to, then how is He sovereign?

 

[JonC]

Like John Owen says, what tends to happen is that our will is so closely linked to the very essence of our selves that you cannot really distinguish the two.

That is not how the Bible presents it (a mind set on the flesh vs a mind set on the Spirit), but even if it were so it would make a significant difference.

Calvinists complain when non-Calvinists use a non-Calvinistic definition to argue against predestination. You have made this complaint on forums where non-Calvinists use a harder determinism to make humans into "robots". @Martin Marprelate has often pointed out the strawman aspect of such arguments made in ignorance. Same with the "cosmic child abuse" arguments".

But when the shoe is on the other foot you become the one making the strawman arguments in ignorance.

It is intellectually dishonest to evaluate an opposing position without accepting the opposing definitions in the argument.

When engaging in philosophy it is important first to arrive at agreed upon definitions. This has to occur BEFORE an argument is made. Simply assuming "free-will" means "libertarian free-will" does not work because both sides of the argument rejects libertarian free will.

 

[DaveXR650]

That is not how the Bible presents it (a mind set on the flesh vs a mind set on the Spirit), but even if it were so it would make a significant difference.

Calvinists complain when non-Calvinists use a non-Calvinistic definition to argue against predestination. You have made this complaint on forums where non-Calvinists use a harder determinism to make humans into "robots". @Martin Marprelate has often pointed out the strawman aspect of such arguments made in ignorance. Same with the "cosmic child abuse" arguments".

But when the shoe is on the other foot you become the one making the strawman arguments in ignorance.

It is intellectually dishonest to evaluate an opposing position without accepting the opposing definitions in the argument.

When engaging in philosophy it is important first to arrive at agreed upon definitions. This has to occur BEFORE an argument is made. Simply assuming "free-will" means "libertarian free-will" does not work because both sides of the argument rejects libertarian free will.

Once again. No one is assuming anything. Free will short of libertarian or autonomous free will is accepted by all sides as being true as far as I know. The insistence that one can autonomously generate their own motives, that one can will to will a thing is what Calvinists object to. I'm not asking and personally don't care if you agree with that or not. But those are the definitions within which I will discuss these issues since those are the definitions that I find in all the literature on this I have ever seen. I don't know where you are coming from on this.

 

[DaveXR650]

God has provided the information, the drawing, the conviction but as we see in reality some, not all, will respond in faith. In fact most will not as they just want too do what they want to do.

That's where it gets hard. I do concede that Calvinist theology in practice and in teaching, even by the great ones seems to slip into saying that men are hearing, understanding and then consciously rejecting God's word. The stated theology doesn't match what the sermons and papers to laymen seem to say, at times. And I have not figured this out. It could just be that I am uneducated on this. I think more likely Calvinists are simply attributing anything they do good to the Spirit, and any deficiency or sin, to themselves. And honestly, one could do a lot worse than that.

 

[Ben1445]

Amen!

I would like to recognize that my critique of the term "free" will is a semantic one in which I'd rather use biblical themed words when coming up with a cohesive theology rather than philosophy words mixed with biblical words (at least on key topics). I don't have a problem with people who mix them. I have just found that the mixing sometimes leads to confusion and error.

I agree that there is a large difference of opinion when it comes to terms. There is really no consistency when it comes to definitions and terms. That is probably one of the biggest reasons for denominations and separations IMO.
I appreciate your patience in this respect. It does a great deal for continued discussion.

For transparency, I am not a Calvinist.

Where would you say that you land by description? It is helpful to understand where you are coming from with as little detective work as possible. I’m no Sherlock Holmes when it comes to telling where people are coming from.

Regarding your quote, my thought is...but in the biblical sense slaves of sin don't just run away in the Bible. At least not in any stories within the Bible that I know. The slaves are freed by God's power and accomplishments and are led out of captivity by a metaphoric Christ figure.

As was the case with Onesimus, there is still a bondage that must be answered for. Onesimus returned to Philemon because he was still in bondage to him. Though sinners are the slaves of sin, I don’t know anyone who believes that they must ask permission from sin or stand before the judgment seat of sin to discuss freedom.
If God holds the opportunity for freedom from sin, then it is real. There are no hoops to jump through or red tape to cut. Jesus has finished His work already.

I'm not denying a moral culpability of accepting or denying the gospel. Only that Christ had to come first, leave us a record of His word, use vessels to sow that word...before any offer reached its accept or deny point.

And He certainly has come, Word was sent before, during, and after He came. Written, spoken and written again respectively. And the command for vessels to carry the gospel to all has been given. Every man who is given the gospel is at an accept or reject point. Some come to this place several times.

In the sense in which we are speaking, i.e., accepting or rejecting the gospel. The Son of God had to have a Cosmic Triumph victory (1Cor 15:24-28, Rom 8:20-23, Psa 8:6, Heb 2:8, Eph 6:12, 1Pet 3:22, Col 2:15). Mankind are prisoners, slaves in a foreign empire under the power and dominion of darkness. We need a Conquerer that puts under foot the power of our captors and a Savior to lead us out of the empire of darkness in which we are chained and enslaved.

This has certainly been done. There is nothing Christ left undone.

Without the Son of God's victory over the Devil (1John 3:8, Heb 2:14, Col 1:13-14), the power of sin (Rom 8:3, Rom 6: 6-7,14), the power of death (1Cor 15:26, Heb 2:14), the dominion of all principalities and powers (Eph 6:12, 1Pet 3:22, Col 2:15,1Pet 4:11, 1Pet 5:11, Jude 1:25, Rev 1:6), and the overcoming of the power and dominion of Hades over the dead (Rom 14:8-9, Act 2:36, Rom 6:9, 1Cor 15:55, 1Pet 3:19, Matt 16:18, Luke 16:23, Act 2:27,31, 1Cor 15:55, Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20: 13-14, Rom 6:9)..... without this victory our faith is in vain (1Cor 15:14).

A couple of points
1. We are/were all slaves.

Undoubtedly

2. I'm not sure I'd call it a "right". That word seems misplaced. I would agree that it would be representative of who God is, that is just. If in fact every man was truly "free" (there, I used your word. lol)

It is a right in the sense that we may come, having been called by the Lord. I don’t mean it as the modern generations claim their rights as they “deserve” them.
It is that having been called, they are in the right given to them by Jesus Christ to come.

 

[JonC]

Once again. No one is assuming anything. Free will short of libertarian or autonomous free will is accepted by all sides as being true as far as I know.

You are in your arguments, as libertarian free will is rejected by both sides. You continually frame free-will advocates as teaching libertarian free-will (something most, if not all, reject).

The free-will argument is not that men come to God uninfluenced. Free-will theology holds that no man comes to God except by the influence of the Spirit.

The difference is that free-will theology holds that men make free choices within their influences while Calvinism (the five pount Cakvinists) generally rejects human free-will