Do Calvinists believe anyone has free will?

Osage,

I hear this often as an argument from my reformed brethren. Define for me what traits make up this "natural nature" of man (that we both believe is in opposition to the commands and principles of God)

 

Yep, you've got me pegged.

 

For ANY man to be saved he must CHOOSE Christ.

The problem is that no unregenerate man will EVER choose Christ.

Furthermore, no regenerate man could ever NOT choose Christ.

After a man is saved he has an inner and outer man.

The inner man which is regenerate desires to please Christ.

The outer man desires nothing but carnal satisfaction.

Spiritual maturity, in part, has to do with how much the spiritual man dominates the carnal man.

As we grow in the knowledge of Christ we live more and more for the spiritual and less and less for the carnal.

The more ignorant we are concerning Christ the more carnal we will be.

 

I don't participate in these Cal/Arm discussions, don't plan to and don't want to. But I saw your thread and just wanted to drop in and say something.

Don't be surprised that you haven't gotten an answer yet. You probably won't. I did a grad school paper on this very subject, the Calvinist view of the free will after regeneration, specifically on Rom. 10:14-15. I was able to find no Calvinist sources: none, zilch, nada, nai (the last was Japanese). For that course or another (I forget) I read Warfield (Biblical and Theological Studies, 580 pages) and he didn't have a single word on it. Neither do Strong's Systematic Theology or any other I checked. I have Gill's Body of Divinity--nothing! (P. S. I got an A on the paper.)

Calvinists just don't consider this subject, they don't think about it as you can see on this thread already. I consider it to be a large gap in Calvinist theology.

 

Without discussing all the details. Yes

The answer is the same. Yes and No. Yes he is given a will to make free choices, yet all of his choices are under God's sovereign choices. Then saved and the unsaved are still unholy sinners and need God's grace. If God retracts His hand from a sinners life he will fall to any depth.

He had a choice, but the choice was under God's sovereign rule by which God ordained the sin to happen by secondary means.

 

That's absolutely ludicrous.

I love how these people with NO nameable theology and no beliefs that can be traced back more than a hundred years have the audacity to criticize the intelligence behind a belief system that has been around at the VERY LEAST 500 years.

Like the IFB's in their very brief history have thought of something that 500 years of the most brilliant theologians the world has ever known have not.

If you have not found anything on it, it is because you do not know how to look.

The will of man is free if by free you mean able to do what you want to do. This is on both sides of conversion.

 

Post deleted by poster. Too similar to what someone else has already posted!

 

Wonderful! I'm excited. You obviously have a better library than I do. Please give me a quote from a theologian on this that I can use. In addition to the theologies I already have mentioned (Warfield, Gill, Strong), I have Erickson, Calvin's Institutes, Berkhof. So if your quote is from one of them I can immediately look it up. I'll be happily awaiting your research.

 

Gladly. Define Free Will and I will give you the appropriate quotes.

 

Any quote will do, as long as it from a recognized theologian, and is about free will for the regenerated. If you can't do that, just say so and I'll be on my way, my point proven.

As to the rest, all the definitions and interminable arguments, I said very clearly that I don't do that. If I wanted to argue Cal/Arm, I would do so with my best friend of 35 years, a 5 point Calvinist, or the Calvinist prof who gave me the A. It wouldn't be here.

 

Then I cannot help you. I can give you quotes where reputable Calvinists speak on the very matter you are referring to, but if you will not define "free will" there is no point. When I give you the quotes you will just slip out of it and say that that is no how you see Free Will.

I think the reason you do not get into these is perhaps because you are not equipped (Calvinist professor giving you an A notwithstanding).

 

Only a very immature debater would do so.

Terms must be defined before discussion can proceed.

If terms are not defined then positions cannot be pinned down and debate is not possible.

Skandelon recognizes this in another debate and wisely asks for definitions (he is the sharpest non-cal on here imo), but unfortunately I have given them to him repeatedly.

Definitions are a must.

 

ZRS6V4

This is necessarily true for Cals and Non-Cals, simply because both acknowledge that God created all things and by default the parameters of all possibilities. (BTW, I think even the "open" folks would also agree)

 

Ok Robert. I am willing to do this. But I do not want the same old junk that has characterized yours and my discussions int he past. Perhaps it was my fault and perhaps it was yours or perhaps it was both our faults- irregardless I do not want the same stupid mess.

If we are going to do this, let's commit to be civil. If you think I am not being civil then tell me and I will try to fix it. I expect the same from you.

I define free will as the ability to do what you want to do.

Do you agree with that definition?

If not what would you change?

 

From Chapter 9 Of the 1689 Baptist Confession

4. When God converts a sinner,and translates him into a state of grace,He frees him from his natural bondage under sin,and by grace alone He enables him freely to will and do that which is spiritually good. But because of his remaining corruptions he does not only (or perfectly) will that which is good,but also wills that which is evil.
5. The will of man will only be made perfectly and immutably free to will good alone in the state of glory.

 

I knew you couldn't find a quote. And I expected some such insult from you.

I'll not hold your youth and inexperience against you. I was discussing Calvinism with a Presbyterian roommate before you were born.

 

Thank you, Rippon. Not exactly a recognized theologian (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong), but actually a good quote. You being the proper book worm, I'm not surprised you could find a quote. I suspect Luke won't agree with it. But I do. :type: