Willing to Believe: Introduction

Hi Skypair,

I'll have some time tomorrow to sit down and look at the introduction and I'll try to reply. It's been several years since I read the book.

Sproul presents a pretty good argement for his position. His weakness, to me, is that he is arguing historical theology, not biblical theology. There is a particular place in the book where he drops his own argument momentarily and exposes his own weakness. When we get to it, I'll point it out.

 

Here is a difficulty that I find in Sproul's argument in his introduction. On page 23, he says

Then on page 25 he says

My question then, is, what is the difference between Sproul's view and full determinism? I don't see how he avoids determinism in the argument he is making.

 

We don't own that Sproul book so I can't see the context of either citations you provided, so my answer may not fit exactly Sproul's intended meaning.

In the first quote, I've bolded what I see to be the link between the two statements.
Faith is a fruit of regeneration.
It is what we naturally and inevitably produce when we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
God's Spirit frees our enslaved will, enabling it to respond positively with faith which is our belief in Christ crucified for us.
Saving faith is evidence that God's Spirit has changed us.

I don't see a conflict between the two statements at all.

 

Has Sproul claimed that he is not a determinist?

 

I have never read anyone who claims to be a determinist no matter how deterministic their theology is. I assume that applies to Sproul. I am not aware that he identifies himself as a determinist in this book. His argumentation tends to make me think he wishes to avoid the label.

 

Isaiah 40:28 said

So without regeneration a person cannot exercise faith and with regeneration a person cannot avoid ultimatiely exercising faith and a person has no part in their own regeneration.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Is this determinism? Why or why not?

 

I'm a determinist. A Biblical one.

 

Yes, it's all of grace.

I answered that before I saw this post.
I'm good. :laugh:

 

Thanks for your honesty. In my experience, people who hold your view studiously avoid and strenuously object to this term.

BTW, what is the difference between a biblical determinist and an unbiblical determinist?

 

Biblical determinism says that all things happen in the exact way God foreordained them and that man is accountable to God.
As far as I have studied, it can also be called compatibilism.

 

I'm pretty familiar with compatibalism in the writings of D.A. Carson. I think that compatibalism is not the same as determinism and Carson would reject the description of determinist for himself.

 

I also am familiar with Carson and am not sure what he thinks of the term determinism. Here's a quote from an article from Monergism.com.

Here's the full link...http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/08/compatibilistic_determinism.php

 

Thanks for your reply. I accept compatibalism but I reject determinism. I think we may be down to a case of semantics with no real disagreement.

 

All Calvinists are determinists. What Calvinists object to is being called fatalists.

Most Calvinists are compatibalists, but compatibalism is a form of soft determinism. Compatibalism is defined as the belief that determinism is compatible with human freedom.

A very few Calvinists are not compatibalists, and they'd be called hard determinists.

Both R. C. Sproul and D. A. Carson are compatibalists, so both are soft determinists. For instance, in Carson's sermon On Preparing for Suffering and Evil, he says that

Evil is directly attributable to secondary causes. But what make those secondary causes secondary it that the first cause, even of evil things, is God. It is God who determines what will happen, but it is accomplished through and directly attributable to the secondary causes that actually do the evil. However, when it comes to good acts, God is the one who determines what will happen and he is the one who accomplishes them and to whom they are directly attributable.

The quotes you posted from Sproul are talking only about a good act: believing unto salvation. It is directly attributable to God because it is accomplished by the monergistic work of the Holy Spirit.

By the way, D. A. believes that it is a monergistic work of the Spirit that brings about saving faith, too.

 

Russell, very good, succinct summary of the issues at hand.