Limited Autonomus Will

[Silverhair]

This is where you get to the end of the argument. My definition of free will where you do what you are inclined most to do does work with "ordained". It's an uncomfortable philosophy but true. But here is where you are correct. The man above can be under conviction many times over many years and still reject salvation until he dies. Bunyan would say, you guessed it, he was not elect. Now you can dismiss that as what we used to call a "cop out" but it's right in the Westminster Confession of Faith. God ordains everything yet does no violence to the will of the creature. You can accept it or reject it.

The other response - that God sets up a plan and has to wait on your truly autonomous free choice doesn't work either. There are too many scriptures saying that God doesn't do that. I'm going with the WCF and my definition of free will which matches Edwards. Let me just say there are scriptures which indicate both I think. I do not elevate it to a test of orthodoxy. But we have to realize that most people who lean to free will think that Calvinists are slandering the nature of God and so are probably demonic. Most people who follow the Calvinist system think free willers are turning faith into a meritorious work, thus taking credit for part of their salvation and so are possibly "barely saved" but most likely lost.

When you say that an ordained free will is an "uncomfortable philosophy but true" what I see is a vast amount of Cognitive Dissonance on display. It is logically impossible for ones free will actions to be ordained. But you seem to be comfortable with it. As for your referring to the WCF as a basis for your position does that not seem to be a bit of circular reasoning to you. If as you say "God ordains everything" then that would include all things with no exception so to say "yet does no violence to the will of the creature" is illogical. That is like saying to a man locked in a cell, you can leave anytime you want.

Under a truly autonomous free will the man could save himself but that is not what man has is it? I am surprised that you would bring up the old calvinist canard. Man has the God given free will to make real choices, choices that God will hold them responsible for.

God has a plan for the redemption of a people for Himself. We see this from Genesis 1:1 through to Revelation 22:21. God desires to save all but will only save those that freely trust in Him.

 

[AustinC]

@AustinC . I'm not mixing and merging philosophies. I am citing the primary original English speaking users and inventors of this stuff we call Reformed theology. If you can blow them off without actually refuting them that should bother you and anyone who reads these posts. It's actually possible that you are mishandling reformed teachings.

As for scripture references, most people won't read a lengthy post with 20 references. People complain about that. I explained that the writings of Bunyan average about 1 scripture reference every 2 sentences. Folks can look them up or not. But if they do, they can see the reference right along side a solid reformed explanation by Bunyan rather than me or you posting a list of scriptures by themselves. Besides, look a couple of posts back on this thread. We all have the same scripture and we can't even get everyone to agree that Romans chapter 9 argues for God's sovereignty.

And I don't really care if what I say bothers others but I hope I'm not carrying a sword at all. I can tell that you and a lot of others on both sides here view themselves as doing so.

Dave, I take others opinion, listen to them and then weigh them against scripture. If they don't align with scripture I let them drop into the waste basket as being the opinions of a fallible human who didn't rightly divide scripture in that particular area. There are things that Calvin wrote that I think he got wrong. The same with Puritans and Bunyan. He can be helpful, but he isn't infallible. The Bible is infallible and Bunyan had better have biblical documentation for why he teaches something or else it's merely his opinion.

We all wield a sword. It is the Word of God. It is sharp and it cuts like a scalpel. It is one of the weapons we use (along with prayer). Use scripture, Dave. The thoughts of the past saints, apart from scripture, are merely rubber swords.

 

[kyredneck]

Dave, on some level you make me smile as you try to mix oil and water.

One of my favorite BB characters was a nice guy and a 'mugwump' like @DaveXR650.

...mugwump...

 

[DaveXR650]

When you say that an ordained free will is an "uncomfortable philosophy but true" what I see is a vast amount of Cognitive Dissonance on display. It is logically impossible for ones free will actions to be ordained. But you seem to be comfortable with it. As for your referring to the WCF as a basis for your position does that not seem to be a bit of circular reasoning to you. If as you say "God ordains everything" then that would include all things with no exception so to say "yet does no violence to the will of the creature" is illogical. That is like saying to a man locked in a cell, you can leave anytime you want.

If you truly think that all concepts of God's nature have to be reduced to our comprehension then you have the same problem with an autonomous free will. Because God cannot really know what you will do in the future if you really are completely free to change your mind at any moment. The WCF tried to use scripture that on one hand clearly states that God ordains everything and on the other hand clearly states a responsibility to choose to obey God. What do you want them to do? In all fairness to Austin, you never successfully refute the explanation of the scriptures that support the sovereignty of God yet you stay on a rigid fictitious autonomous free will that even modern neuroscience has refuted, much less scripture. I'm sorry this is hard.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave, I take others opinion, listen to them and then weigh them against scripture. If they don't align with scripture I let them drop into the waste basket as being the opinions of a fallible human who didn't rightly divide scripture in that particular area. There are things that Calvin wrote that I think he got wrong. The same with Puritans and Bunyan. He can be helpful, but he isn't infallible. The Bible is infallible and Bunyan had better have biblical documentation for why he teaches something or else it's merely his opinion.

We all wield a sword. It is the Word of God. It is sharp and it cuts like a scalpel. It is one of the weapons we use (along with prayer). Use scripture, Dave. The thoughts of the past saints, apart from scripture, are merely rubber swords.

Is there anyone who you could cite that you read or listen to or do you rely totally upon your own interpretation of scripture? The Bible is infallible but your own interpretation is not and my advice would be that when all the great Calvinist theologians disagree with you on something you might at least pause and do some further research.

 

[AustinC]

Is there anyone who you could cite that you read or listen to or do you rely totally upon your own interpretation of scripture? The Bible is infallible but your own interpretation is not and my advice would be that when all the great Calvinist theologians disagree with you on something you might at least pause and do some further research.

I study scripture so I listen to sermons on those scripture passages and read commentaries on those scripture passages. People like John Piper, Ian Duguid, Sinclair Ferguson, RC Sproul, Eric Alexander, John Gill, etc., are people I will glean insight from, but I take them only as fallible brothers who are attempting to do the same thing I am attempting to do, which is to discern the Word of God. I rarely read topical books or listen to topical sermons. I find them to be mostly man-centered opinion pieces that rarely examine the Word of God.
Perhaps you are enamored with topical writings. You certainly have this love of quoting people based on topic rather than on the substance of God's word. That's your perogative, but I don't find a lot of value in those books.

 

[Silverhair]

If you truly think that all concepts of God's nature have to be reduced to our comprehension then you have the same problem with an autonomous free will. Because God cannot really know what you will do in the future if you really are completely free to change your mind at any moment. The WCF tried to use scripture that on one hand clearly states that God ordains everything and on the other hand clearly states a responsibility to choose to obey God. What do you want them to do? In all fairness to Austin, you never successfully refute the explanation of the scriptures that support the sovereignty of God yet you stay on a rigid fictitious autonomous free will that even modern neuroscience has refuted, much less scripture. I'm sorry this is hard.

Your "autonomous free will" is just a strawman that you have constructed. You contradict yourself when you say God ordains all things but man has a free will. The WCF while it has some good in it has massive contradictions in it that calvinists overlook. But for the consistent calvinist they would have to say it was determined that they believe it. The consistent calvinist also has to agree that they have no independent thought and that everything they do is scripted. Are you a consistent calvinist?

Where have I said that God is not sovereign? What I have said is that the deterministic sovereignty that Austin wants to put forward and it would seem you do also, is not biblical. Your view of Gods' sovereignty is a calvinist construct.

It seems that you do not trust what the bible says
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

What is the means of salvation?

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Rom 10:13 For "WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED."
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Now you my or my not believe these verses but I do and I do not have to look for loop holes, as some on BB do, so as to avoid what they say. The gospel is for all and all can be saved through faith in Christ Jesus. Does that mean that will be saved, no, but the atonement was for all 1John 2:2.

I do hope this clears up some of your misunderstanding of what I believe.

 

[Silverhair]

Is there anyone who you could cite that you read or listen to or do you rely totally upon your own interpretation of scripture? The Bible is infallible but your own interpretation is not and my advice would be that when all the great Calvinist theologians disagree with you on something you might at least pause and do some further research.

Dave your first mistake is in thinking that I would actually trust what most of your calvinist theologians say. They are writing from that view so it would impact all that they say. The bible is the best commentary on itself and is to be the authority for all people. If you want to trust in what some man has said rather than trust what the bible says that is your option but as for me I will trust what the bible says.

You must think rather highly of all those calvinist theologians since you seem to trust them more than the Holy Spirit.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Silverhair . You and Austin are both looking at the same scriptures, both claiming to rely only on God's word, both claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, and both coming up with completely different understandings of the passages. Let me make this clear. Nothing either one of you has said makes me doubt the salvation or orthodoxy of either one of you and you both seem like nice guys. My conclusion is that these things are easily interpreted different ways but both of you get offended if I bring up any other source of knowledge. There probably isn't anything else to say on this.

 

[DaveXR650]

One of my favorite BB characters was a nice guy and a 'mugwump' like @DaveXR650.

...mugwump...

When I get a chance I'm gonna go look that up. I might be offended.

 

[AVL1984]

Your background sounds similar to mine. And my attitude toward confessions was similar to yours. Do me a favor. Next time you're in the area of the Sword of the Lord building, go in and slap them for me for introducing me to Spurgeon on the front page of the Sword of the Lord. Sword of the Lord was pretty good when John R. Rice was still around, by the way.

I liked them when JRR was the one in control. When Curtis Hutson took it, it became nothing more than a KJVO IFB rag. I stopped reading it in 1997.I pass by there every now and again, and from the lack of cars in the parking lot, and the lack of employees like there used to be, I don't think there's any need to slap them in the face I think they've slapped themselves! I like some of Spurgeons writings, but I take him, like David Cloud, with a huge dose of salt!

 

[DaveXR650]

I liked them when JRR was the one in control. When Curtis Hutson took it, it became nothing more than a KJVO IFB rag.

Amen on that.

 

[DaveXR650]

When you say that an ordained free will is an "uncomfortable philosophy but true" what I see is a vast amount of Cognitive Dissonance on display.

If God looks into the future and says for instance that on December the 25th, 2022, Silverhair is going to go to such and such a place and do this or that, then what I am saying is that from that point that is the only possible thing that can happen on December 25th. It may be your choice to go there and do that but can you deny that if God predicted it then that is the ONLY thing that can possibly happen? Even though you say God only looked ahead and SAW what would happen, if it is known and said by God that it will happen - it must. So it is ordained. Yet you acted by your own free will. In order for your free will to be truly autonomous you would have to have the ability to change you mind even after God made His prediction. You don't, because once God said it was going to happen that way it will, it must and it was ordained. Your free will was not violated in this because you are doing what you wanted to do but your will was not "autonomous" because you could only do what was permitted and ordained by God.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair . You and Austin are both looking at the same scriptures, both claiming to rely only on God's word, both claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, and both coming up with completely different understandings of the passages. Let me make this clear. Nothing either one of you has said makes me doubt the salvation or orthodoxy of either one of you and you both seem like nice guys. My conclusion is that these things are easily interpreted different ways but both of you get offended if I bring up any other source of knowledge. There probably isn't anything else to say on this.

I have been blessed in that I never heard of C vs A until a few years ago. I do not doubt Austins' salvation but I do question his understanding of the means of salvation. I do not get offended by your bringing up your calvinist sources but I just do not agree with what they have said. I have read Owen, Pink, Barnes, Schaff and others even some of Calvin. When they are saying something that is in opposition to what the bible say then which do you think I should follow?

 

[Silverhair]

If God looks into the future and says for instance that on December the 25th, 2022, Silverhair is going to go to such and such a place and do this or that, then what I am saying is that from that point that is the only possible thing that can happen on December 25th. It may be your choice to go there and do that but can you deny that if God predicted it then that is the ONLY thing that can possibly happen? Even though you say God only looked ahead and SAW what would happen, if it is known and said by God that it will happen - it must. So it is ordained. Yet you acted by your own free will. In order for your free will to be truly autonomous you would have to have the ability to change you mind even after God made His prediction. You don't, because once God said it was going to happen that way it will, it must and it was ordained. Your free will was not violated in this because you are doing what you wanted to do but your will was not "autonomous" because you could only do what was permitted and ordained by God.

Reading through what you just wrote points out the problem as I see it. You think God has to determine everything that a person does, such as what I would do on Dec 25.2022. But you would balk I am sure if I said that God determined that Jeffrey Dahmer would kill and eat people. But that is what your determinism leads to. That is why I do not agree with the calvinist errant view of the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign but He does not have to determine all that happens just as the bible points out. Jeremiah 7:31 That is unless you think God wanted them to sacrifice their children in fire?

God looked into the future and said that His son would be crucified for the salvation of the world and it happen just as He said. There is a vast difference between God causing something to happen for example the cross and allowing man to have a real free will and them doing what Dahmer did or on the other hand, because of their free will, one hearing the gospel and believing the message about salvation through faith in Christ Jesus and being saved.

If God determines all things as calvinism posits then He determines all things not just some things. So God would be the cause of all evil and He is ultimately responsible for all sin. But on the other hand if God in His sovereignty said man has a real free will in that he can choose good or evil [Genesis 3:22] then we have man responsible for his own choices.

So the difference is that where you see God determining all that happens I see God knowing all that will happen even the free will choices of man. God is omniscient so there are no surprises.

 

[DaveXR650]

So the difference is that where you see God determining all that happens I see God knowing all that will happen even the free will choices of man. God is omniscient so there are no surprises.

No. Not determining but ordaining or permitting. If God knew that some horrible thing was going to happen on such a time and He told you 30 days before it happened then either that thing must happen or God would be wrong. With your view of autonomous free will the actors involved could change what they do any time thus making God's prediction wrong, which is impossible. With my view of free will someone can decide to do something horrible on their own, with their own free will. They cannot do it without God knowing and allowing it. He does not have to approve of it morally because it really was their free choice, but if He allows it to happen it was because he permitted it. If God said that He was going to determine or make someone do something horrible at a certain time that is far different than what I am talking about. Complete sovereignty does not make the actors blameless or cause them to act against their choices.

 

[AustinC]

I have been blessed in that I never heard of C vs A until a few years ago. I do not doubt Austins' salvation but I do question his understanding of the means of salvation. I do not get offended by your bringing up your calvinist sources but I just do not agree with what they have said. I have read Owen, Pink, Barnes, Schaff and others even some of Calvin. When they are saying something that is in opposition to what the bible say then which do you think I should follow?

Be honest. It's in opposition to your humanist position that gives glory to man as the means of salvation.

 

[Silverhair]

No. Not determining but ordaining or permitting. If God knew that some horrible thing was going to happen on such a time and He told you 30 days before it happened then either that thing must happen or God would be wrong. With your view of autonomous free will the actors involved could change what they do any time thus making God's prediction wrong, which is impossible. With my view of free will someone can decide to do something horrible on their own, with their own free will. They cannot do it without God knowing and allowing it. He does not have to approve of it morally because it really was their free choice, but if He allows it to happen it was because he permitted it. If God said that He was going to determine or make someone do something horrible at a certain time that is far different than what I am talking about. Complete sovereignty does not make the actors blameless or cause them to act against their choices.

You hold to the WCF as a good representation of your calvinist view.
Chapter III.
Of God’s Eternal Decree.
I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: ... WCF

Dave you are actually being a bit disingenuous in your comments. If God ordains whatever comes to pass how is that different from God determining all that happens? And if God ordains whatever happens how does that make permitting different from determined?

If God has determined that X is going to happen such as the crucifixion then the free action of man will not affect that. You say that under your calvinist view the person could choose to do something horrible on their own, with their own free will. But that is not what your WCF or the calvinist deterministic view allows for, man does not have a free will under calvinism. It is contradictory to say God ordains whatever comes to pass unchangeably and man has a free will. If God determines all things that happen then man can not do anything that God has not determined to happen or avoid doing anything that God has determined will happen. So your idea of calvinist free will is illogical.

But we see that God in His sovereignty has allowed man to have a free will and will hold man responsible for the free choices he makes. I have to ask what is the difference between your "complete sovereignty" and sovereignty and between your "autonomous free will" and free will?

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave you are actually being a bit disingenuous in your comments. If God ordains whatever comes to pass how is that different from God determining all that happens? And if God ordains whatever happens how does that make permitting different from determined?

I'm thinking that the difference is like in the case of Joseph, the brothers pulled that stunt of selling him on their own, without any determinism by God. But God had decreed that Joseph was going to get to Egypt so with some combination of determinism and ordaining the plot was carried out and later it was said that his brothers meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. God did not take over their brains and make them throw him into the pit. But in an overall sense, for the sake of the accomplishment of the end result, the whole thing was ordained. (Now one thing I'm not sure about: I'm not sure God ordains everything like this. He may have His plans, which will be accomplished and for all we know he may not do this for everything. If in 1750 the Mohawks fought the Hurons in a small battle and the Hurons won did God ordain the result? I really don't know. But we do know of Biblical examples where God did ordain what was going to be accomplished.)

Some Calvinists do absolutely teach that God personally determines everything. And I mean everything. If you fall off your motorcycle and break your leg they would say God broke your leg. I would say you took the turn too fast. I think discussions like this are fascinating but I don't think they are important for Christian life. For one thing 90 percent of the human population would have no idea or conception of what we are talking about. The other thing is that you have to come to Christ, believe the gospel and repent of your sins or you will not be saved. But you are not required to have a certain view of HOW this occurred or the precise order. The other thing to be careful of is whenever we start throwing around our ideas about whether God is responsible for this or that or why did he allow this or that we are moving right into the area where Jobs friends got into trouble with their philosophizing.

 

[DaveXR650]

But we see that God in His sovereignty has allowed man to have a free will and will hold man responsible for the free choices he makes. I have to ask what is the difference between your "complete sovereignty" and sovereignty and between your "autonomous free will" and free will?

If you offer me a plate of cookies and I choose the chocolate chip because I like them best then that is free will. Autonomous free will would mean that there can be no outside influence that has any effect on my sovereign choice. Therefore my choice of cookies is meaningless and can be based on nothing more than random chance. It is true that when things influence our choices they decrease our absolute freedom. But as a living organism and a human being that is what makes my free choice have meaning for me.