Question about Calvinism

[Silverhair]

You didn't read what I said.
Romans plainly tells us we are responsible.

Your words "Free Will is an illusion. Sin nature, human nature, genetics, and nurture leave no room for true free Will."

My response "If man has no free will then man has no responsibility."

How does that equate to my not reading what you said? How is a man responsible for actions over which he has no control? By your logic man is just a meat puppet and as a puppet he is not responsible for the way he dances, that falls to the one pulling the strings.

“God does not will which choice you'll make but that you'll be free to make it” A.W. Tozer

 

[Reynolds]

Your words "Free Will is an illusion. Sin nature, human nature, genetics, and nurture leave no room for true free Will."

My response "If man has no free will then man has no responsibility."

How does that equate to my not reading what you said? How is a man responsible for actions over which he has no control? By your logic man is just a meat puppet and as a puppet he is not responsible for the way he dances, that falls to the one pulling the strings.

“God does not will which choice you'll make but that you'll be free to make it” A.W. Tozer

You left out a very important word in your quote.

 

[Silverhair]

Not only did Spurgeon say that but look at this:
"Wherefore, that which is now proposed unto consideration in answer hereunto, is the readiness of Christ to receive every sinner, be he who or what he will, that shall come unto him."
That from John Owen.
"Salvation is ready brought to your door; and the Savior stands, knocks, and calls that you would open to him, that he might bring it in to you. There remains nothing but your consent. All the difficulty remaining is with your own heart. If you perish now, it must be you would not come to Christ that you might have life, an because you virtually choose death rather than life." Jonathan Edwards

So do I seem to think that. Did Edwards, Spurgeon and Owen think that? That's why I keep saying that you (and the new Calvinists) need to really read these guys. If you do you eventually get a sense of where they were and you get a sense of why the great confessions are so brilliantly well done and thought out.

I am not saying that Edwards, Spurgeon or Owen did not believe what they wrote. I will admit it is good to see that they saw personal faith as requirement for salvation. But I have also seen quotes from all of them that run counter to the bible.

As with any writer some of what they write is good some not so good or in this case some writing is closer to biblical truth than other. Your conclusion regarding the various confessions is tainted by your theological view. What you may see as "brilliantly well done and thought out" has to be understood as coming from their biased position. That being said if you can accept the obvious contradictions then do so. I see those contradictions as a problem that has to be dealt with.

As I have said before the standard is the word of God and any writings with reference to scripture has to come into agreement with scripture or it should be discarded.

 

[Silverhair]

You left out a very important word in your quote.

What word would that be?

 

[Reynolds]

What word would that be?

TRUE free Will

 

[AFJ]

TRUE free Will

And it starts to make more and more sense that a “true feel will” is a will that is enslaved to a corrupt nature.

What I am taking away from this thread is that it seems like some here affirm that God’s knowledge of who will and will not be saved has not yet been determined. I start with the foundation that God knows the future without exception, otherwise God would fail the test of a true God. All of my other conclusions have to come from that fact.

God promises that He absolutely will accomplish His purposes. Let’s say that when Christ was slain, God offered salvation to everyone. He did not know who would accept it until they did accept it. This opens the possibility that not a single person could have chosen to be saved at all. This then means that God might have failed to accomplish His purpose. I’m struggling to look at it any other way.

 

[DaveXR650]

God promises that He absolutely will accomplish His purposes. Let’s say that when Christ was slain, God offered salvation to everyone. He did not know who would accept it until they did accept it. This opens the possibility that not a single person could have chosen to be saved at all. This then means that God might have failed to accomplish His purpose. I’m struggling to look at it any other way.

I also tend to look at free will as us just being able to do what we are most inclined to do. This leaves room for us being totally dependent upon God for even coming to faith in Christ. And it thus makes sense that a direct work of the Holy Spirit is essential or else none of us would be saved.

And while that is where I am personally, I have to admit that the Molinist position, that a true free will decision, if it is truly free and autonomous, cannot be known ahead of time because it does not exist anywhere yet nor have any determining forces even by God been exerted upon the actor. Is God still all knowing? Yes, God knows all possible autonomous choices, and has contingent plans for all free decisions that will be made. And God also knows enough about our makeup that he knows some will freely believe. But like @Silverhair insists, if God himself gives you a choice, do we have any right to say we don't have a choice.

It sounds stupid at first but yet if you look at several scriptures you wonder. God acts like he was going to wipe out the Israelites and start all over with Moses at one point. And Moses talks him out of it. God seems to say to Abraham now I know you will obey me. God seemed to just flat out say that Ninevah was toast but then they all seemed to make a free will decision to humble themselves and God (changed his mind?) and spared them. In a system like this God will certainly have his will ultimately accomplished. But it does explain how we can have genuine free will choices which let's face it, multiple scriptures seem to act as if that is the case.

When I first heard of this from William Lane Craig I thought it was nonsense, but after listening to him debate James White I thought he held his own pretty well.

 

[Silverhair]

TRUE free Will

One either has free will or they do not. You can add all the adjectives you want but it does not change what free will is. On this board I have seen actual, autonomous, true, limited, non-free, used but in the end it does not change what free will is.

The gospel message when presented brings about possibilities in which a person can say yes or no to the gospel. If he says yes, it is his choice. If he says no, it is his choice. To say he cannot make an actual free will choice is to fall back to determinism.

 

[David Lamb]

The gospel message when presented brings about possibilities in which a person can say yes or no to the gospel. If he says yes, it is his choice. If he says no, it is his choice. To say he cannot make an actual free will choice is to fall back to determinism.

I would say that before Jesus frees a sinner, he is bound by sin and Satan, and that includes one's will and affections. As Charles Wesley wrote in his well-known hymn, "And can it be that I should gain?": "Long my imprisoned spirit lay Fast bound in sin and nature's night; Thine eye diffused a quickening ray, I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free; I rose, went forth, and followed Thee." Jesus in John 8 speaks about unsaved sinners being slaves of sin.

 

[Silverhair]

I would say that before Jesus frees a sinner, he is bound by sin and Satan, and that includes one's will and affections. As Charles Wesley wrote in his well-known hymn, "And can it be that I should gain?": "Long my imprisoned spirit lay Fast bound in sin and nature's night; Thine eye diffused a quickening ray, I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free; I rose, went forth, and followed Thee." Jesus in John 8 speaks about unsaved sinners being slaves of sin.

Being an unsaved sinner does not remove the ability to make real choices if it did then again we fall back to determinism.
What does Jesus say in John 3:18 "The one who believes in him is not judged, but the one who does not believe has already been judged,..."
Both the one who believes and the one who does not believe are in the active voice which means they are ones making the choice. The context {John 3:14-21} shows us Jesus is speaking about the slave to sin being able make real choices regarding their salvation.

 

[37818]

Romans 6:16, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

 

[Silverhair]

Romans 6:16, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

And surprisingly those slaves can still think and make real choices.

 

[Reynolds]

And surprisingly those slaves can still think and make real choices.

But not free choices.

 

[Silverhair]

But not free choices.

So you are in disagreement with the bible.

 

[AFJ]

God acts like he was going to wipe out the Israelites and start all over with Moses at one point. And Moses talks him out of it.

Let’s say God did wipe out the Israelites. That would nullify the Messiah and all of the other prophets that were promised to come into existence. This would mean God failed to accomplish His purposes and that can’t be so.

Genesis 3:15 (ESV)
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Galatians 1:15 (ESV)
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace

So I have to wonder, was God really going to destroy the Israelites unless Moses made a free will decision to intervene? If God knows what’s going to happen at any point in time, Moses could not have done anything other. Perhaps this was more about demonstrating Moses’ faith and compassion for his people.

 

[AFJ]

Double posted, disregard.

 

[Reynolds]

So you are in disagreement with the bible.

No. I fully agree with The Bible.

 

[Silverhair]

No. I fully agree with The Bible.

You keep saying that but your posts prove you wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

So I have to wonder, was God really going to destroy the Israelites unless Moses made a free will decision to intervene? If God knows what’s going to happen at any point in time, Moses could not have done anything other. Perhaps this was more about demonstrating Moses’ faith and compassion for his people.

I agree. I tend to think Edwards had it right when he said that God knows the future, and for him to know it infallibly at some level means it's because he makes it so. I find that for anyone to really believe that God knows the future, when you think about it there has to be some level of foreordaining, rather than just "seeing" ahead.

I just think that Molinism is interesting and to me, if you are a person who takes seriously that man has a truly autonomous free will, it is one way to get around the fact that no one, not even God, could truly know what an autonomous decision is going to be. There do seem to be cases where God has interactions with people that seem open ended, in the sense that a choice can be made and different results occur based on the choice made.

I'm not a good Calvinist because I reject limited atonement and believe that grace, though necessary prior to us believing is essential, it can be resisted. But I think Edwards nailed it in his writing on free will, even if he might go too far in the predestination.

 

[AFJ]

But I think Edwards nailed it in his writing on free will, even if he might go too far in the predestination.

Which writings would you recommend? I need to see what this guy has to say.