Leaving Calvinism?

[DaveXR650]

Free will is not informed by what you choose but rather that you were able to choose freely. Choosing A over B and latter choosing B over A does not alter your free will just what you chose by your free will.

If you easily do that in a situation all it means is that you were not strongly inclined to choose one way or the other. Which is fine. Many if not most things are like that. But as a human all your decisions are based on something or else they are random chance. Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not eat the kings food. Could he have instead just ate the king's food? Of course, but if he had done so, it could only be that some dynamic had changed which altered his will. If say his desire to honor God was 10% less or his fear of bringing attention upon himself was a little more - those things could have altered his decision. But if it was his decision and it was different than what he in fact did - then it was because his will was different. Which is why people come up with the theological idea that the Holy Spirit directly acts on our will. (A new heart or at least an enlightened or convinced heart).

Now please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not just trying to mess with you with word games. This is important because these things I talk about that make up who we are and what our will is, are important and some of these things can be subject to moral judgement. For instance, if you are faced with a temptation to infidelity you will have an inclination to be faithful and do right, and an inclination to seek momentary pleasure. Which inclination wins is your responsibility. Yet, I am saying that the inclination you listen to most is by definition the strongest and will win and that makes up who you are and what you become. In the Calvinistic and Arminian system, they are all saying that the Holy Spirit's direct help is needed if the inclination to come to Christ will ever win. Arminians say it might, Calvinists say it will, and Flowers says no such help is needed or provided.

 

[Silverhair]

God isn't making anything different. We, when left to our own devices, tend to be at enmity against God and when left on our own we don't tend to choose to follow God. We do much better on our own understanding a book about deception or dirty tricks or warfare because we have a natural tendency to be attracted to those things when left to our own free will. We have 5000 years of recorded history that backs this up. When it comes to obeying God, whether the Law or the Sermon on the Mount our failure and inability is indisputable. What I personally still wrestle with is that I don't know if this means that we can't even say "I give up" and cry out to God for deliverance. Maybe that much we can do on our own. I don't know.

Dave read what you said "we have a natural tendency to be attracted to those things". Tendency Dave not certainty. I am not disagreeing with you, man does tend to go to the darker side of things but you for some reason can not see that he also can go to the lighter side. Yes we have 5000 yrs of human history but you ignore all the history that shows man trusting in God even though they may do it poorly.

If man can only go in one direction then we might as well throw out the bible as just stories. It says we can and are expected to go too the light and history shows that many do. Are you going to say that it is only those that God picked out that can trust in Him? If so then again we might as well throw out the bible.
The Sermon on the Mount was meant to show us what we should be like but also what we are like. But do you know what you do not find in those verses, that we can not turn to God in faith.

Actually we find just the opposite.

Mat 7:24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:
Mat 7:25 "and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

But we also find a caution for those that reject God

Mat 7:26 "But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:
Mat 7:27 "and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."

Dave you do not need to struggle, God has given every man the ability to seek Him. To humble themselves and just give up and trust in Him for their salvation.

What I struggle with is why more will not humble themselves. This a burden on my heart for all my extended family and many people that I know. It is not that they can not hear it is that they will not hear. Free will is both the best and the worst gift that God could have given mankind.

Do you think these words only apply to those living prior to the cross?
Heb 11:6 And 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 seek Him.

 

[Brightfame52]

@Silverhair

Actually we find just the opposite.

Mat 7:24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:

Those sayings of Christ are nowadays rejected as Calvinism. Christ Himself taught Total inability Jn 6:44, unconditional election, limited particular atonement for His Sheep Jn 10, the effectual call Jn 12:32 and the preservation of the Sheep unto Glory.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair


Those sayings of Christ are nowadays rejected as Calvinism. Christ Himself taught Total inability Jn 6:44, unconditional election, limited particular atonement for His Sheep Jn 10, the effectual call Jn 12:32 and the preservation of the Sheep unto Glory.

@Brightfame52 you are using your calvinism to inform you what the bible says and means, in other words you are reading into the text what you need to find to support your preconceived views.

Christ was not a calvinist and did not teach those errant views.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave read what you said "we have a natural tendency to be attracted to those things". Tendency Dave not certainty. I am not disagreeing with you, man does tend to go to the darker side of things but you for some reason can not see that he also can go to the lighter side. Yes we have 5000 yrs of human history but you ignore all the history that shows man trusting in God even though they may do it poorly.

Sure. Men are capable of virtue but you have just illustrated the reason your view of free will is flawed. With it you must assume we are neutral and can equally go either for or against God. All we lack is information and we can take it from there. But we haven't and don't. And here is the elephant in the room. As soon as you admit there is a need of direct help from God, acting on your individual soul, you open the door to all the theology of the Calvinist.

It may be extreme or overstated, but the simple fact is, given the undisputable fact that all men are not saved, if you admit that those that are, are saved because of an essential influence of the Holy Spirit on their individual selves you now have to admit that it must be either blanket and universal or due to God's sovereign choosing. We know for certain universalism is wrong so it must be decisive in some. Can it be resisted? Even if it can and often is, if it is decisive in those who end up being saved you still leave the idea of a sovereign election intact. If it is decisive and not resisted in the person who got saved - then for that person, who is part of the elect, it was indeed irresistible. Funny thing is, the WCF spells it out in that manner.

 

[DaveXR650]

I think in summary, it may well be that for those of us living in the times we live in, with modern thought patterns, Calvinism, as stated in the great confessions is flawed in that it tries to distill great theology into small (relatively speaking) statements which don't always do justice to God's revealed plans and methods for every individual at every given moment in time.

Still, this thread started out featuring a guy who has decided to devote his life to refuting Calvinism, and he is basing this on a flawed view of the central point, which centers around the proper perception of man's will. For purposes of this thread: if there needs to be some direct action on a man's soul on the part of the Holy Spirit to enable him to actually come to Christ, then the door is now open for all the 5 points of Calvinism to be true. Flowers, to his credit, seems to understand this.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650 makes a good observation about "us", living in modern times with a different mindset.

What we call "Calvinism" (the "Doctrines of Grace", or "5 points") was an early 17th century rebuttal to a Calvinist movement (a movement that started from within Calvinism, and was initially considered extremely but within orthodox Calvinism).

Things get complicated when applied outside of a rebuttal, to the modern world, and outside, and away the Presbyterian theology.

 

[Silverhair]

If you easily do that in a situation all it means is that you were not strongly inclined to choose one way or the other. Which is fine. Many if not most things are like that. But as a human all your decisions are based on something or else they are random chance. Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not eat the kings food. Could he have instead just ate the king's food? Of course, but if he had done so, it could only be that some dynamic had changed which altered his will. If say his desire to honor God was 10% less or his fear of bringing attention upon himself was a little more - those things could have altered his decision. But if it was his decision and it was different than what he in fact did - then it was because his will was different. Which is why people come up with the theological idea that the Holy Spirit directly acts on our will. (A new heart or at least an enlightened or convinced heart).

You have missed the point I was trying to make; It does not matter how strong the persons conviction is to one position or the other. When they choose or change their mind it is through their free will. Just as Daniel chose via his free will to trust God. As you said he could have eaten the king's food by he chose not to. Did God force him to make the decision he did, NO. Daniel chose of his own free will to trust God and to reject the king's food. Some people struggle with the idea that people can actually freely make a choice to honor God or even trust in Him so they come up with the idea that God has to make them do the good things or trust in Him, that God has to directly intervene or man would always go to the dark side.
You use the terms "A new heart or at least an enlightened or convinced heart" but unless you want to say that God forces the choice that is make you have to say the person made the choice. And for the man not to been forced means it had to be a free will choice. There are only two options, forced or free will.

Now please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not just trying to mess with you with word games. This is important because these things I talk about that make up who we are and what our will is, are important and some of these things can be subject to moral judgement. For instance, if you are faced with a temptation to infidelity you will have an inclination to be faithful and do right, and an inclination to seek momentary pleasure. Which inclination wins is your responsibility. Yet, I am saying that the inclination you listen to most is by definition the strongest and will win and that makes up who you are and what you become. In the Calvinistic and Arminian system, they are all saying that the Holy Spirit's direct help is needed if the inclination to come to Christ will ever win. Arminians say it might, Calvinists say it will, and Flowers says no such help is needed or provided.

What it comes down to whether you say might, will or no the choice is made through a free will decision or it is forced/determined. What is moral judgement but someone evaluating the information they have and then make a decision. Yes there are factors that will influence his decision, up to and including the conviction of the HS but at the end of the line it is still the person who makes that decision. That is free will in action. The influences do not make the choice the person does.

You even say "the Holy Spirit's direct help is needed if the inclination to come to Christ will ever win." The direct help of the HS is the conviction of sin but the person still has to make the choice. The other option is that the HS cause/forces the person to make the decision they do.

All the examples you have used still point to the person making a choice of their own free will. Who or what or the amount of influence in the end does not matter, the person still has to make the decision.

 

[Silverhair]

I think in summary, it may well be that for those of us living in the times we live in, with modern thought patterns, Calvinism, as stated in the great confessions is flawed in that it tries to distill great theology into small (relatively speaking) statements which don't always do justice to God's revealed plans and methods for every individual at every given moment in time.

Still, this thread started out featuring a guy who has decided to devote his life to refuting Calvinism, and he is basing this on a flawed view of the central point, which centers around the proper perception of man's will. For purposes of this thread: if there needs to be some direct action on a man's soul on the part of the Holy Spirit to enable him to actually come to Christ, then the door is now open for all the 5 points of Calvinism to be true. Flowers, to his credit, seems to understand this.

The sticky point is what do you consider direct action. If you are speaking of conviction of sin then I agree but if you think it goes beyond that then what or how? If you think that the HS controls or determines the choice a man will make then you have stepped outside the bible for your views. That is what the calvinist 5 points entail and thus are not true. To deny man's free will is to remove his responsibility for his sin.

The fact the HS convicts man of their sin does not mean that they will not continue to sin. They know the sin is wrong but continue to do it anyway.

 

[DaveXR650]

All the examples you have used still point to the person making a choice of their own free will. Who or what or the amount of influence in the end does not matter, the person still has to make the decision.

Yes, you are right. Some branches of Calvinism deny this but the guys I am familiar with, Spurgeon, Bunyan, Owen, Hodge, Edwards, Ryle do not. They all talk about the dual truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility - and they admit that this cannot be resolved by a human. And as a human trying to resolve this I think my view is more accurate than you or Flowers.

I do not think this is a matter of Christian orthodoxy. I think it is a matter of opinion only, especially for us as laymen. Maybe at the level of establishment of church policy or development of a statement of faith for a church or college it may have more practical meaning but for me it's just something I like to explore.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you are speaking of conviction of sin then I agree but if you think it goes beyond that then what or how?

Martyn Lloyd Jones in his sermon archives has a sermon on that. It comes down to whether the Holy Spirit "convinces" or just "convicts". The idea being that if he really convinces it in that case was indeed effective.

To deny man's free will is to remove his responsibility for his sin.

Not the way I have explained it. The short answer is that your propensity to evil is part of your free will. No one, including God, has caused you to be like this. What I think the whole problem is with your view of free will is that you are demanding that it be pure and operating from a higher standpoint than it actually is.

 

[DaveXR650]

What we call "Calvinism" (the "Doctrines of Grace", or "5 points") was an early 17th century rebuttal to a Calvinist movement (a movement that started from within Calvinism, and was initially considered extremely but within orthodox Calvinism).

I for some reason really enjoy reading G. Campbell Morgan. If you're not familiar with him he was the predecessor of Martyn Lloyd Jones at Westminster Chapel. He was not a Calvinist. One thing he said was that in his opinion, no church or group in all of history has been blessed with having possession of all truth when it comes to things of God. I don't hear many theologians admit that but it seems apparent that he was right. Most of what we call theology was indeed done to counteract something else.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes, you are right. Some branches of Calvinism deny this but the guys I am familiar with, Spurgeon, Bunyan, Owen, Hodge, Edwards, Ryle do not. They all talk about the dual truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility - and they admit that this cannot be resolved by a human. And as a human trying to resolve this I think my view is more accurate than you or Flowers.

I do not think this is a matter of Christian orthodoxy. I think it is a matter of opinion only, especially for us as laymen. Maybe at the level of establishment of church policy or development of a statement of faith for a church or college it may have more practical meaning but for me it's just something I like to explore.

I understand the dual truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. But what you seem to have a problem grasping is that for man to be responsible he has to be able to make real choices. That requires a free will.

Yes God is sovereign but that does not mean that He determines all things as calvinism would have it. Because God is sovereign He in His wisdom has given man a free will. As I said before if man does not have a free will then we have to say all things are determined and that would mean the only responsible one is the determiner which would have to be God. Are you willing to say that God is responsible for all the sin and evil in this world?

Actually I would disagree with you, free will is a matter of Christian orthodoxy. Actually it is the basis for it. What you think re free will informs all your understanding of God. Is He a God of love or power? Does He foreknow all that will happen through His omniscience or because He has decreed it?

 

[Silverhair]

Martyn Lloyd Jones in his sermon archives has a sermon on that. It comes down to whether the Holy Spirit "convinces" or just "convicts". The idea being that if he really convinces it in that case was indeed effective.

Even if we agree with what MLJ said it still does not alter the case. If the HS is effective and convinces the person of their sinful actions they still have to choose if they want to change. It is still their free will. The same applies to salvation the HS can convince the person of the truths of scripture but the person has to freely trust in God. They have to make that decision it can not be made for them.

Not the way I have explained it. The short answer is that your propensity to evil is part of your free will. No one, including God, has caused you to be like this. What I think the whole problem is with your view of free will is that you are demanding that it be pure and operating from a higher standpoint than it actually is.

You are not explaining it, you are giving examples of people that use their free will. Just because man uses his free will to do evil things does not alter what free will is. Even your comment "No one, including God, has caused you to be like this." is an admission on your part of free will.
My view of free will is not the problem the fact that you do not accept that man has a free will is.

Give me a clear answer to this question. Does God determine/decree all that happens?
NOTE I am not asking if He influences things as that can be seen through His creation the actions of the HS etc.

Here is another point I would like you to consider. Do you hold to the position you have regarding free will because it was determined that you hold it or because you chose to hold it based on the information that you evaluated?

 

[DaveXR650]

Give me a clear answer to this question. Does God determine/decree all that happens?

Do you hold to the position you have regarding free will because it was determined that you hold it or because you chose to hold it based on the information that you evaluated?

I don't have any way to know for sure whether it was determined. I know it is what I freely choose to believe. I think that the writing of Jonathan Edwards on the subject influenced me a lot. If I had not spent the time to read him, and he is difficult, I don't think my free will opinion would be the same. Make of that what you will. What I have been trying to explain to you is that as a human, if my free will decisions are not influenced completely by such things then the only other alternative is for my decision to be meaningless, based only upon whim or chance. We are creatures created to live and learn and act based on responses. We are not sovereign like God, with nothing to learn and no needs to fulfill, completely self sufficient. For you to demand like Flowers does a free will that operates like God's is absurd in my opinion.

 

[DaveXR650]

Give me a clear answer to this question. Does God determine/decree all that happens?
NOTE I am not asking if He influences things as that can be seen through His creation the actions of the HS etc.

Somehow my answer got knocked off the previous post. I'd say no but with the idea that even things not decreed as God's primary will and purpose were at least known and allowed to happen. So I would say you could go so far as to say all things are ordained by God as opposed to specifically determined.

 

[Silverhair]

I don't have any way to know for sure whether it was determined. I know it is what I freely choose to believe. I think that the writing of Jonathan Edwards on the subject influenced me a lot. If I had not spent the time to read him, and he is difficult, I don't think my free will opinion would be the same. Make of that what you will. What I have been trying to explain to you is that as a human, if my free will decisions are not influenced completely by such things then the only other alternative is for my decision to be meaningless, based only upon whim or chance. We are creatures created to live and learn and act based on responses. We are not sovereign like God, with nothing to learn and no needs to fulfill, completely self sufficient. For you to demand like Flowers does a free will that operates like God's is absurd in my opinion.

Lets start at the end on this. How would you come the conclusion that I think I have free will like God? Or that I even demanded it. Free will is not what I have demanded it is what we have been given by God and that He expects us to use and will hold us responsible for the choices we make.

What I did see in your comments is that you freely chose to believe, that is a clear admission of you having a free will. Which is just what I have been trying to get you to see and understand. Since you admit that you freely chose that eliminates determination of your belief which by extension throws out your 5 points of calvinism. Your free will choice is not compatible with the 5 points of calvinism.

You seem to think free will means making decisions without any influencing factors, God may do that but we as humans make our decisions based on the information we have. Just as you said that Edwards influenced you a lot. So your opinion of free will is based upon what Edwards wrote, you did not just pull it out of the air. That is the same way a person comes to faith in God, their opinion is based on information that is available to them. As we see in Joshua the people are presented with the choice to serve the Lord or other gods with every expectation that they are capable of making that choice and are responsible for the choice they make.
Joshua 24:15

If you are saying that my view and Flowers of free will are the same and my view is nothing like you try to portray it to be then your opinion of Flowers is also way of base. That we do not agree with you deterministic version of free will points to your error not ours.

By your own words your view of free will has been informed by outside influences, Edwards, whereas mine has been informed by the outside influence of God and His word.

 

[DaveXR650]

How would you come the conclusion that I think I have free will like God?

Maybe you don't but Flowers does. He says so in his own video.

If you are saying that my view and Flowers of free will are the same and my view is nothing like you try to portray it to be then your opinion of Flowers is also way of base

It's in the video he made. Early in this thread I made reference to it.

So your opinion of free will is based upon what Edwards wrote, you did not just pull it out of the air. That is the same way a person comes to faith in God, their opinion is based on information that is available to them.

Yes, with the difference that in the case of deciding my view of free will, since this is not a moral issue or a sin issue, I am not naturally impeded or in any way hindered by my nature or any propensity of my will to believe a certain way. All my inputs are morally neutral in this area not inclining good or bad. In coming to faith in God though, I have, due to my natural bent, which is part of my own makeup, a real problem. I don't naturally want to move close to God and obey him. Nothing like that is going on when I am studying a neutral subject. Don't you see the difference? (Just to clarify, my natural tendency to sin and selfishness is present even in normal, everyday things, but those things in themselves are not of a nature that determines my salvation so the direct action of the Holy Spirit is not at work in the same way. I can even go quite far in self reformation and improve myself quite a bit. What I cannot do without direct aid on my soul by the Holy Spirit is truly come to Christ with saving faith.)

 

[Brightfame52]

@Brightfame52 you are using your calvinism to inform you what the bible says and means, in other words you are reading into the text what you need to find to support your preconceived views.

Christ was not a calvinist and did not teach those errant views.

So you dont like the sayings of Christ !

 

[Silverhair]

Maybe you don't but Flowers does. He says so in his own video.

I just read through the text again and Flowers does not even suggest that he has a free will that operates like God's as you claim he does. From what I see you are reading into that text what you want too find. Perhaps you can quote the text for me.

It's in the video he made. Early in this thread I made reference to it.

Yes, with the difference that in the case of deciding my view of free will, since this is not a moral issue or a sin issue, I am not naturally impeded or in any way hindered by my nature or any propensity of my will to believe a certain way. All my inputs are morally neutral in this area not inclining good or bad. In coming to faith in God though, I have, due to my natural bent, which is part of my own makeup, a real problem. I don't naturally want to move close to God and obey him. Nothing like that is going on when I am studying a neutral subject. Don't you see the difference? (Just to clarify, my natural tendency to sin and selfishness is present even in normal, everyday things, but those things in themselves are not of a nature that determines my salvation so the direct action of the Holy Spirit is not at work in the same way. I can even go quite far in self reformation and improve myself quite a bit. What I cannot do without direct aid on my soul by the Holy Spirit is truly come to Christ with saving faith.)

Do you not find it odd that God would desire all to know Him and come to Him for their salvation but then makes it impossible for them to do so and then will punish them forever for not doing what they can not do.

To quote Flowers "Further, people can accept false spiritual truths in the form of the doctrines of false religions. A person can read a religious text that is teaching them false truth statements and believe those falsehoods. Someone can believe a lie so much that they willingly die for it but people cannot believe true spiritual truth statements from a true religious text?" Why?

Quoting Flowers again "is it just truths related to God’s nature and provision that people are naturally unable to understand and accept as true?" If so, why?

Calvinism can not give a logical answer to those questions. You speak of your natural bent but for a 5 point calvinst your natural bent is determined by God just as whether you are one of the "elect". The free choice you claim to have is really not free as you require the HS to change you prior to trusting in God. The fact the bible disagrees with your view does not seem to matter as you seem more inclined to defend calviniam. Yes I know you have read a number of calvinist teachers that support your view. But you are trusting in men to tell you what the bible says rather than trust what the bible says.

Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Rom 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
Rom 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?