I have a question about Calvinism.

Jim, would you define free will for the list as you see it defined by Calvinism? Thanks.

 

I did read post #10. We can debate definitions, but it doesn't change the fact that I, as a Calvinist believe that a person freely exerts his will within his nature, without coercion or compulsion. Those who plotted to kill Jesus did so without coercion or compulsion, but willingly. That's why Paul called them wicked. Yet God determined from eternity that the death of Jesus on the cross as the result of those plotting Jews, acting freely and without compulsion, would happen.

 

HP: Tom, what does it mean to be able to exert ones free will within their nature? The will is the chooser, not the nature. The will is a distinct entity clearly distinguishable from the sensibilities. The will is not part of ones nature, it is the part of man that forms intents. Our nature indeed provides influences to the will and can serve as a formidable influence to selfishness upon the will, but the will and all influences upon it are not one in the same. The sensibilites are guided by necessity. The will is and must remain free as long as it is moral and it's choices blameworthy or praiseworthy.

If your will was bound to your nature it would not nor could it be free. It would be necessitated by the nature. If there is only one possible subsequent, i.e., sin for a given antecedent i.e., a nature to sin, the will is under complete bondage, it is under necessity and cannot be said to be free. If the will is free it must be able to choose something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstances. Again, the free will you paint a picture of is not free at all.

 

HP: Here we have Jim’s picture of what constitutes a free will or freedom; a will that cannot do anything but sin, a will that cannot make spiritual decisions. What kind of freedom does that describe??

No Jim, your freedom is no freedom at all. I will agree though that it is a great picture of ‘classic Calvinism.’

 

Heavenly Pilgrim: Have you drawn the two circles I mentioned earlier? Once drawn, do you understand what they are demonstrating? If you have done this, I will then explain the so-called free will of man.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, I have them drawn and I believe I understand your point, I simply do not believe it in any way eliminates the problems with the Calvinistic viewpoint as detroying true freedom of the will. Give us your definition of what a free will consists of so we can better understand you.
.

 

Thank you HP.

The outer circle is the key to understanding the rest. We have the absolute sovereignty of God. If God is indeed God, He must be sovereign and He must be absolutely sovereign. If man, His creation, can tell God what to do, then the absolute sovereignty dissolves. God then moves from the divine ranks to the finite ranks of human kind.

Now we have the free will of humans to deal with. Man is more than a mere robot. Man has a brain and can function alone as a unit. How do we relate the two, God's absolute sovereignty and man's free will to think on his own? We draw the scond circle within the larger circle and call it the Permissive Will of God.

God allows man to function. He can think on his own. He can develop ideas contrary to God's decrees. An atheist can develop moral codes that suit society. We see this in many great people who have done marvellous things in the world, whilst denying the very existence of God. They have financed missions of aid to needy children around the world.

Man's mind has not changed. He can live a good life. He can attend church and ignore the preaching. This is done on a regular basis.

On an eternal level, humans are all dead in sin. This was declared by God with the fall of Adam,,,adam meaning the entire creation for all time and not just the man later named Adam.

So, it is impossibe for this adamic creation to come to Jesus through his free will, his free thought process. In order for this to happen, there must be divine intervention. This divine intervention we call election. God elected who would be saved from before the foundation of the earth. This we know from scripture. It can't be denied, if we are to believe the scriptures.

So God forechose who would be saved. Step two, God acts upon the soul of man and calls him unto repentance. This can be an inner calling by God alone. This can be by the preaching of the word. This can be by personal contact with Christians. This can be in the quiet when man realizes the Christ as Saviour and receives that free gift bought by Jesus on the tree.

So, man has relative freedom, but only under what we conveniently designate the permissive will of God under the absolute sovereignty of God.

Man may say there is no God and walk away without impunity. "See, " he says, "No God." In God's own time He may call this person unto judgement. No fanfare. No outward demonstration. In God own prerogative and timing this man will face judgement.

In this area of God's permissive will, we do all we humanly can do to teach truth, to preach the "saving" gospel, we beg and instruct humans what to do. In the end it must be God who acts upon the soul of humankind. Why? It must be or God is simply not God at all. He is either sovereign or not. He can't be both.

Yet under this thought man is indeed free.

Cheers,

Jim

 

HP: Who ever is the first cause of a moral intent is the sole being responsible for that choice. Who then is the first cause of man’s moral intents?

Your circle tends to indicate God is the sole cause of all intents for you have placed everything involved in man’s makeup within the circle of God’s direct sovereignty. Again everything in the circle of God’s sovereignty must be the direct results of that sovereignty, does it not? Is not God the first cause of everything in the circle of His sovereignty? If not why not?

You cannot have everything involved in man’s makeup, or the makeup of any moral responsible being for that matter, directly within God’s sovereignty or you make God out as the first cause of everything, including the first cause of all moral intents, including those that are wicked, sinful, and evil. If you do not desire to see God as the first cause of all evil you are going to have to remove something from His direct Sovereign control. If you stay with your circle as described, fine, but you have just made God the author and first cause of all evil. Are you certain this is your position or the position you desire to be seen as having?

Now classic Calvinism does not shrink from this wicked absurdity, and in fact admits and accepts it. Will Jim? That remains to be seen. The problem with circles is that there are no means of escape.

 

It no more makes God responsible for sin anymore than Adam determines his own redemption.

This why we have a second circle titled God's Permissive Will...permissive, not causative. God allows things to happen, but He has the ultimate control on how far one my go..thus far and no further, God says.

My view is classic Calvinism.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, is sin within your circles and is God Sovereign? Who is the first cause of sin? Can there be any first cause other than God for anything and still be within God's circle of Sovereignty you drew? If so, how? Are you going to tell us that there can be two first causes within the circle of God's sovereignty? If so how can God be said to be Sovereign?? Is God or is He not, the first cause of everything in that Sovereign circle?

 

God does not lie, but man does. God created man, and man is within those circles,,behaviourally........man lies, but God does not create lies.

Put man in the correct circle of activity,,under the permissive will of God. It lines up.

Cheers,

Jim

 

HP: Let me see if I understand you correctly. What you are saying is that God is not sovereign, i.e. He is not the first cause over things and activities inside the circle of His permissive will, right?

 

I am very sorry if you can't read. I clearly said that God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN...This is mandatory.. Hence the second circle within the first circle.

Sorry, I can't make it any clearer.

Cheers,

Jim

 

HP: Oh I see. God IS the first cause of all lying and sin, seeing He is "ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN," hence the second circle completely and fully inside of the first circle, right?

 

Someone needs to take a good look at how they define sovereignty or what it means to be an Absolute Sovereign. Does it or does it not involve being the Absolute First Cause? If not, something is wrong with the depiction of being an Absolute Sovereign and as such they are in dire need of redrawing their circles to depict their true sentiments.

 

Why is God's permissive will less than (inside) His sovereignty?

 

I would suggest that to be morally blameworthy of praiseworthy that one has to be the first cause of those moral intents. One must have total and sovereign rule over ‘that particular ability’ to choose between two or more alternatives, again, to be praised or praised for them. I do not know how to draw circles to represent that in a way that eliminates all questions, but I do believe it is true. I do know to speak of man as being a free moral agent, or possessing a free will, apart from the ability to be a first and sovereign cause of the formation of moral intents, is to effectively destroy moral accountability and all freedom.

God created man in His image. God created man to live eternally. God has, in the arena of morals, granted to man the ability to be the first cause, the sovereign cause, of his moral intents. It could be said that the Sovereign God, in His Sovereignty, chose to grant to man a measure of His sovereignty in the area of the formation of moral intents. Man may or may not have the ability or opportunity proven to be effective in carrying out those intents, but complete freedom to form them is an absolute prerequisite of moral agency, without which morality is impossible to conceive of and praise of blame absurd in the light of truths of immutable justice.

If man is blamed or praised for moral intents, he must be the first cause, the sovereign cause of those formed intents. If God is the Sole Cause of ‘all’ things, as represented by the outer circle in Jim’s illustration, one cannot escape the logical conclusion that indeed God is also the first cause of all evil as well. It is good that Jim is inconsistent in this matter, by denying the inescapable logical ends of his argument. I would loudly proclaim, Oh those blessed inconsistencies!

I would kindly suggest that Jim return to the drawing board to create a new circle illustration better reflecting his sentiments, that he has stated eliminate God as the Sovereign over ‘all’ things, which of necessity would include being the cause of evil as a necessitated consequence of such a viewpoint. Clearly that point of Jim’s is right on. It is just that it is inconsistent with his circle illustration.

You cannot say, God is ‘Absolutely Sovereign,’ and then deny that by saying that He is not sovereign over the formation of evil. When he uses the term ‘absolute’ he closes the circle of his argument to the point of making responsibility of moral beings within that circle absurd. Absolute means absolute. If one makes an exception, the concept of ‘absolute’ is logically and rightfully rendered null and void. God in His Sovereignty, made an exception to His Sovereignty by creating man, sharing with man the ability God possesses, i.e., the ability to be the first cause of His moral intents, and as such a morally responsible being.

 

So, you prefer to have a lame duck God who is vunerable to every whim and fancy of humankind? Stop trying to play with "first cause" nonesense and try connecting theology as expressly revealed in scripture.

If man is your "first cause" in the creation of sin, then he to acts outside the parameters of God's being..What a weak-kneed god you have. Explain Jonah. Jonah didn't want to obey God. He wanted to go his own way, even in the end. God compelled him to obey and go minister to the Ninevites.

I prefer my circles of God's absolute sovereingty with a secodary circle of God's permissive will, allowing man to use his own God-created being to sin (an act) and hence fall out with God..Sin is not a creation of God, but under God's permissive He has allowed sin to happen. God remains sovereign, and yet man is allowed to use his own innate intelligence under God's sovereignty.

I don't understand a wor of what you wrote about first cause silliness, and that I make God the creator of sin. That is just plain foolish!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Thanks for the responses Jim. I believe I will stand by to hear your response to Webdog’s question and to see if others might desire to take a shot at this thread.

 

Quote: Why is God's permissive will less than (inside) His sovereignty.
------------------------------------
Webdog: His permissive will is inside the outer circle, labelled absolute sovereignty. It is inside because everything comes under the absolute sovereignty. The inner circle, His permissive will is the relationship of man in life. The reason I show Jonah to illustrate God working upon man. Jonah could actually deny God until God finally says,,thus far and no further,,you will go to the Ninevites.......now!

So man was created a whole being in the likeness of God; intelligence, soul/spirit and physical features. These things must function and they do so apart from divine interruption. Hence, an atheist can have moral values frm his own being...a philanthropist is an example of a good man performing in the world..This has nothing to do with religious belief, redemptive values or anything to do with God, per se. However, God can and does call a halt to man's endeavors when it pleases Him. He calls some to salvation, and passes by others. We don't know why, but He does it to His own pleasure.

He create man without sins, but man failed and the penalty for that failure was death; spiritual and bodily. The only solution to the spiritual death was redemption provided by God.

Still man continues to function from his own faculties.

Another way to demonstrate God's absolute sovereignty and Man's responsibilities is to draw two parallel lines..mathematically, lines meet only in infinity. God abides on the top line and man has his being in the bottom line. God created man whole and innocent and planted him on the bottom line. His choices are made from there.

On the above line we have eternal decisions made by God: predestination, election, perseverance, etc.

On the bottom line (still under God's sovereignty) man exercises his faculties to reason. His will to receive God's promise of redemption is imposed on some and passed by on others,,or the act of election from man's view.....Many men call it man's free will, but it is really man's free will under God's permissive will.

God is not the author of sin, even though He permitted it to happen under man's own cognitive values.

Trust this explains it as briefly as possible. Shucks, theologians write books on this one topic.

Cheers,

Jim