Limited Autonomus Will

[Silverhair]

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.

You have used Joseph but I think that is actually a bad example for you. Did God plan for that to happen, of course, actually I think many of the things that happened in Josephs' life were planned by God. It was part of Gods' overall plan to bring about the redemption of those that trust in His son. But not everything is planned by God, if it were then you have just made Him the primary cause of all sin even if it was you, Dave, that sinned because under the calvinist view He has to determine all things. If we go with the no random molecule of Sproul then that really does not leave the calvinist any logical out.

As for Mohawks & Hurons they chose to fight of their own free will or God caused them to fight and kill each other. Did God cause Hitler to kill 6 million Jews or did he do it on his own. The determinism of calvinism has God causing many terrible things to happen. What we must keep in mind is that the bible does not teach the determinism of calvinism. Actually that did not come along until Augustine introduced it. He brought his Gnostic philosophy into the church. Augustine actually held to free will until he had his fight with Pelagius at which point he ran to the far end of the logic pool rather than stand his ground regarding free will.

 

[Van]

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.

God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Biblical view as God grants (allows) many things in scripture.
Any other view joins the friends of Job.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic:
The idea we are free to choose from among available options is consistent with our experience. Scripture tells us God sometimes restricts our options, i.e. hardening the hearts of some such that they will reject the gospel, i.e. Romans 11.

"The absence of free will is, however, devastating to all theists since without it you cannot choose to be evil or good, and therefore deserve neither punishment nor salvation."
So the complete absence of free or autonomous will is irrational and unrestricted free will is unbiblical. Some assert since we are free to choose among various sinful actions, but unable to choose the narrow path that leads to life, it makes sense for God to punish us for the sin we chose. Rational minds object.

We can harden our own hearts by the practice of sin. And God can harden hearts for His purpose, such as Romans 11. God can choose a person well on the way of hardening his own heart, and complete the process. Scripture does not rule any of the three out.

Some say whatsoever comes to pass is predestined to occur. Therefore God is the author of sin. Then some others say while it is true that God to be sovereign must predestine everything, that does not make God the author of sin. Rational minds object.

Why would God still blame us for our choices after He hardened our heart? My answer is He would not. But prior to that those hardened did make sinful choices, sealing their fate. The hardening, like physical death, simply ends the opportunity to obtain mercy. God, as the potter has the right to harden whoever He pleases.

Why would God do that, cut short the opportunity of some, and endure their hardened behavior? God did so to make known the riches of His glory (see Romans 9), including even us which He called not from Jews only but also from among Gentiles.

Our ability to make choices from a among various options can be restricted by God for His purpose, thus the Biblical doctrine is "Limited Autonomous Will."

Romans 9:16 teaches men can will and work to be saved, thus total spiritual inability as the result of the Fall is shown to be mistaken doctrine.

So when you see disputes raging over complete slavery to sin versus complete freedom of our will, consider that we are fallen and therefore predisposed to sin with a corrupt nature, but we are not so incapacitated as to not be responsible for our choices to reject Christ, or to not treat others as we would treat ourselves, because we have the capacity to accept Christ, and strive to do the will of God

 

[AustinC]

Returning to topic:
The idea we are free to choose from among available options is consistent with our experience. Scripture tells us God sometimes restricts our options, i.e. hardening the hearts of some such that they will reject the gospel, i.e. Romans 11.

"The absence of free will is, however, devastating to all theists since without it you cannot choose to be evil or good, and therefore deserve neither punishment nor salvation."
So the complete absence of free or autonomous will is irrational and unrestricted free will is unbiblical. Some assert since we are free to choose among various sinful actions, but unable to choose the narrow path that leads to life, it makes sense for God to punish us for the sin we chose. Rational minds object.

We can harden our own hearts by the practice of sin. And God can harden hearts for His purpose, such as Romans 11. God can choose a person well on the way of hardening his own heart, and complete the process. Scripture does not rule any of the three out.

Some say whatsoever comes to pass is predestined to occur. Therefore God is the author of sin. Then some others say while it is true that God to be sovereign must predestine everything, that does not make God the author of sin. Rational minds object.

Why would God still blame us for our choices after He hardened our heart? My answer is He would not. But prior to that those hardened did make sinful choices, sealing their fate. The hardening, like physical death, simply ends the opportunity to obtain mercy. God, as the potter has the right to harden whoever He pleases.

Why would God do that, cut short the opportunity of some, and endure their hardened behavior? God did so to make known the riches of His glory (see Romans 9), including even us which He called not from Jews only but also from among Gentiles.

Our ability to make choices from a among various options can be restricted by God for His purpose, thus the Biblical doctrine is "Limited Autonomous Will."

Romans 9:16 teaches men can will and work to be saved, thus total spiritual inability as the result of the Fall is shown to be mistaken doctrine.

So when you see disputes raging over complete slavery to sin versus complete freedom of our will, consider that we are fallen and therefore predisposed to sin with a corrupt nature, but we are not so incapacitated as to not be responsible for our choices to reject Christ, or to not treat others as we would treat ourselves, because we have the capacity to accept Christ, and strive to do the will of God

*Jeremiah 17:9*
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

The human heart is wretched before Christ. Whatever our will desires, it is always bent toward corruption.
Daniel 11:29 says, “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but it shall not be this time as it was before."
Just after this in Daniel 11:36 we read:
“And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done."

Note then that we do have wills and our wills do what we want (desperately wicked stuff). Note also that these things are decreed and appointed by God.

There is action that we can pick from, but it's only within the confines of our masters house and it's all under the time appointed.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

Dave you keep using the term "autonomous free will" as if it is a bad thing. To have an autonomous will just means that they are not subject to control from outside; it's independent. The choices they make are theirs, thus they are responsible for them. Dave you make autonomous free will choices all the time, either that or you have to admit that you are just a puppet on a string controlled by God and you have no independent thought. Does that mean that one can save themselves, NO, but it does mean that they can turn to Christ based upon information that they have provided to them. As for you choosing which cookie to take, were you forced to take a certain one or did you choose which one you wanted. Having an autonomous free will does not mean absolute free will that is just your calvinism kicking in. It seems calvinist love to conflate terms in the attempt to support their errant theology.

To be clear, no one has absolute free will but everyone has autonomous free will. Can you save yourself, NO, then you do not have absolute free will, did you decide to praise God for this day, then you have autonomous free will. So whether you want to call it "free will" or "autonomous free will" it is still you making real meaningful choices.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'll go with your definition of autonomous free will. If I'm offered a plate of cookies I, myself really do choose which cookie I take with no coercion of my choice. But here is what happened:

I see the cookie and a whole bunch of physiological signals are sent to my brain TELLING ME I want one.
My reason dialogs with this saying "wait a minute, there are 30g of sugar and 240 calories in one cookie.
Another part of me tells me "yeah but the chocolate chip has fewer calories than the other cookie".
At the same time my brain is saying "warning, Grandma Jones made these and she will be offended it you refuse".

And so on. What I'm saying is that these all involve our "inclinations" and they are what really determine the "free will" choice we make. So frankly if a Calvinist says that God directly made you choose that chocolate chip cookie I don't agree either. But if a Calvinist says that it's possible that God given inclinations made you choose to do it then I agree. And the WCF to me anyway, when it comes to saving faith, teaches that the Holy Spirit makes it possible and desirable for us to come to Christ and to believe. I can go with that.

 

[Van]

*Jeremiah 17:9*
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

The human heart is wretched before Christ. Whatever our will desires, it is always bent toward corruption.
Daniel 11:29 says, “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but it shall not be this time as it was before."
Just after this in Daniel 11:36 we read:
“And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done."

Note then that we do have wills and our wills do what we want (desperately wicked stuff). Note also that these things are decreed and appointed by God.

There is action that we can pick from, but it's only within the confines of our masters house and it's all under the time appointed.

LOL, just read Romans 9:16, people will and work to receive mercy and compassion. Full Stop.

 

[AustinC]

LOL, just read Romans 9:16, people will and work to receive mercy and compassion. Full Stop.

LOL, your compression of God's word is hysterically bad.
*Romans 9:16*
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
What does the word "so" connect you to, Van?
Here's your answer.
*Romans 9:9-15*
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

What Paul is saying is that no amount of human will can ever merit salvation from God.

Only someone who is intentionally being dishonest would "full stop."

 

[Van]

LOL, your compression of God's word is hysterically bad.
*Romans 9:16*
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
What does the word "so" connect you to, Van?
Here's your answer.
*Romans 9:9-15*
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

What Paul is saying is that no amount of human will can ever merit salvation from God.

Only someone who is intentionally being dishonest would "full stop."

Yet another full denial of the obvious truth of scripture.

 

[AustinC]

Yet another full denial of the obvious truth of scripture.

Stop denying it then, Van. Goodness, you acknowledge your denial, so stop it!

 

[Silverhair]

I'll go with your definition of autonomous free will. If I'm offered a plate of cookies I, myself really do choose which cookie I take with no coercion of my choice. But here is what happened:

I see the cookie and a whole bunch of physiological signals are sent to my brain TELLING ME I want one.
My reason dialogs with this saying "wait a minute, there are 30g of sugar and 240 calories in one cookie.
Another part of me tells me "yeah but the chocolate chip has fewer calories than the other cookie".
At the same time my brain is saying "warning, Grandma Jones made these and she will be offended it you refuse".

And so on. What I'm saying is that these all involve our "inclinations" and they are what really determine the "free will" choice we make. So frankly if a Calvinist says that God directly made you choose that chocolate chip cookie I don't agree either. But if a Calvinist says that it's possible that God given inclinations made you choose to do it then I agree. And the WCF to me anyway, when it comes to saving faith, teaches that the Holy Spirit makes it possible and desirable for us to come to Christ and to believe. I can go with that.

Dave you were doing fine until you said "it's possible that God given inclinations made you choose to do it then I agree" As soon as you add those words then it is not free will but rather God caused you to do so. That is determinism. The Holy Spirit convicts one of their sin, pricks their conscience if you will. Some under conviction will turn from the sin others will carry on but it is through their free will that either does what they choose.

I believe that the conviction of the Holy Spirit is one of any number of things that God will use to draw people to Himself. Things that you or I might never think of. I just trust that our loving God will accept any that will turn in faith to Him.

 

[Van]

Stop denying it then, Van. Goodness, you acknowledge your denial, so stop it!

Note the sandbox bully has started throwing sand in the air. Romans 9:16 completely and conclusively demonstrates some lost people will and work to obtain God's mercy and compassion. Thus Falseology's "Total Spiritual Inability" is "Totally False Theology."

 

[DaveXR650]

The Holy Spirit convicts one of their sin, pricks their conscience if you will. Some under conviction will turn from the sin others will carry on but it is through their free will that either does what they choose.

The Holy Spirit convicting of sin and pricking their conscience, and as you say, a number of things that God used - that's all part of what I mean in the development of "God given inclinations". And I did notice that Bunyan did warn everyone not to delay repentance because it is possible to go on in sin and be lost. But I would say that those would be showing that they were not elect. So then a non-Calvinist would reply that no, it's not that their non-election caused them to be lost, but their voluntarily continuing in sin. But that's the whole point Calvinists try to make - the non-elect are truly and actually guilty and are the ones who refuse to repent. God has done no violence to their will but rather left them to their natural inclinations.

And as for the elect, have you ever wondered how in the world do we know whether someone is elect? The answer is first of all we can't know infallibly as humans, but as much as possible the answer is - they are the ones who come to Christ by faith and repent of their sins. That's also why I think that this is important for a full understanding and enjoyment of God's provisions for us - but, everyone who comes to Christ by faith and repents of their sins is saved and elect, whether they follow my assessment of how they got to that point or not.

 

[Van]

. And the WCF to me anyway, when it comes to saving faith, teaches that the Holy Spirit makes it possible and desirable for us to come to Christ and to believe. I can go with that.

This is a typical statement from Falseology Advocates. This could mean the Holy Spirit enables and compels a lost person to turn from hating God to loving God. Or it could mean, the work of the Holy Spirit, in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, and in the provision of the gospel through the inspired text, makes it possible to come to trusting in Christ. Who knows?

 

[DaveXR650]

This is a typical statement from Falseology Advocates. This could mean the Holy Spirit enables and compels a lost person to turn from hating God to loving God. Or it could mean, the work of the Holy Spirit, in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, and in the provision of the gospel through the inspired text, makes it possible to come to trusting in Christ. Who knows?

Van. I think it means both. And if you do the second part and come to trust in Christ you are saved. You may not be aware of the work of the Holy Spirit in you - all you know is that you changed your mind and now all this looks true and desirable. You are not saved by faith in the WCF but it in my opinion is a beautiful document.

 

[Silverhair]

The Holy Spirit convicting of sin and pricking their conscience, and as you say, a number of things that God used - that's all part of what I mean in the development of "God given inclinations". And I did notice that Bunyan did warn everyone not to delay repentance because it is possible to go on in sin and be lost. But I would say that those would be showing that they were not elect. So then a non-Calvinist would reply that no, it's not that their non-election caused them to be lost, but their voluntarily continuing in sin. But that's the whole point Calvinists try to make - the non-elect are truly and actually guilty and are the ones who refuse to repent. God has done no violence to their will but rather left them to their natural inclinations.

And as for the elect, have you ever wondered how in the world do we know whether someone is elect? The answer is first of all we can't know infallibly as humans, but as much as possible the answer is - they are the ones who come to Christ by faith and repent of their sins. That's also why I think that this is important for a full understanding and enjoyment of God's provisions for us - but, everyone who comes to Christ by faith and repents of their sins is saved and elect, whether they follow my assessment of how they got to that point or not.

@DaveXR650 as I said before you and I actually do agree on more than we disagree. Those that have repented and trusted in Christ Jesus then become one of the elect of God up until they do that they are just lost sinners that Christ came to save. Dave we were all guilty of our sins and deserved the wrath of God. That is the point the non-calvinists try to make. The calvinist idea of elect and non-elect is not a biblical concept. We are all under the wrath of God up until the point in time that we trust in Christ Jesus. No one has been picked out for salvation as the calvinist would have it.

I have often said that if Christ came back on a Sunday I think you would find many people sitting in the pews looking around and wondering why all the people disappeared. We can not know who is saved and who is not as outward appearances can and many times are deceiving. That is why God looks at the heart.

 

[Van]

Van. I think it means both. And if you do the second part and come to trust in Christ you are saved. You may not be aware of the work of the Holy Spirit in you - all you know is that you changed your mind and now all this looks true and desirable. You are not saved by faith in the WCF but it in my opinion is a beautiful document.

Well if anyone would know, it would be you since you wrote it. Since you think it means both, it proclaims false doctrine in my humble opinion.

 

[DaveXR650]

Well if anyone would know, it would be you since you wrote it. Since you think it means both, it proclaims false doctrine in my humble opinion.

Yes. People on here accuse you of writing "Vanologies". I thought I would try a Daveology. And yes I could be wrong. Good thread by the way.

 

[DaveXR650]

@DaveXR650 as I said before you and I actually do agree on more than we disagree.

Probably true. I like to debate on a forum but I wish we didn't use the labels in real life. The way the society is going we need all hands on deck if you're a Christian. Time is short.

 

[Silverhair]

Probably true. I like to debate on a forum but I wish we didn't use the labels in real life. The way the society is going we need all hands on deck if you're a Christian. Time is short.

Shorter than most people think I would suspect. I enjoy the back and forth but it does get tiring when some on here get so vitriolic in their responses. I find it is just best to ignore them and let them calm down.