The Myth of a Truly "Free" Will

I couldn't agree more. I started (or restarted, I should say) with nothing but the Bible, trusting no man whatsoever, only the Holy Spirit to show me the Truth. I never considered any system and it was 3 years or so before I was confronted with C/A. So I spent several months studying and I am neither C nor A, but something quite different. If A=1 and C=10 I suppose I usually fluctuate between 4 and 8. Today, I would say I'm a 5, with 3 and 9 the historical high/low.

I'm a Biblicist, first, always open to Truth, but I've found that every new truth only smoothes everything out more, not the other way around. I'm thankful for the freedom that comes from not having to satisfy a system.

 

Hello Marcia,

Well, never heard that.</font>[/QUOTE]Yep - I first read it in the book on the five points of Calvinism by David Steele and Curtis Thomas. The laid out a summary of each of the Arminian ideas and of the church's response to each. The table was reproduced here. Check out #5 on the left, "Falling from Grace".

I can understand that. A lot of people would rather keep talking than to start listening. I'm glad I'm not like that.

 

It is inconsistent to the nature of God as the ground of all being to say that God did not sovereignly decree the existence of evil.
-------------------------------------------------
Utter nonsense!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

If God is love as the Scripture state, then it is up to you to prove His decree that evil exist as consistent with His nature. This you cannot do Scripturally. Again for the slow learners. Calvinism is utter nonsense. (They won't let me use the REAL word for it)

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I like what is written in Genesis about Adam and Eve. Dr. Bob may be from Wy. but you can tell he's never been around mules. They have a will of their own. You have to DRIVE them. That is what God did to Adam and Eve. He had to DRIVE them out. They had the same will going out the gate that they had when God created them.
Thanks -------Bart

 

Is accepting God a good thing ? Is it a good act ? If your answer is yes, then in effect God elects certain people to salvation because He saw some good thing in them, and that is, their predisposition to cling to Him, to come to Him, to accept Him, to seek Him, which some do not have.

So, is man naturally good ? How then will your opinion square with 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God', and 'there is none that doeth good, no, not one, there is none that seeketh God', and 'all we like sheep have gone astray', and Paul's 'there is no good thing in me'.

If your answer is no, then, you will have to come up with another scripturally incongruent and insupportable thesis on why there are those who choose God and there are those who do not. </font>[/QUOTE]My Answer is no, and I do not see it as scripturally incongruent. It is from your point of view, not from mine. How can I answer why some men reject God's free gift? Why did you accept it? Accepting Christ is that moment in which you in faith turn from sin to Christ (repent) Rom 10:9-10; Luke 13:3; Eph 2:8-9.

The Calvinist view of salvation, as has been said over and over, has God doing His work as a respector of persons. That is incongruent with scripture in my view.

As a Biblicist I can agree with some of Clvin's teachings, but those things which do not "jive" with the clear teachings of scripture, I reject.

In Christ

Chad

 

No, it does not. This is one of the common misunderstandings of Calvinist doctrine.

 

Deuteronomy 26
2 That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the earth, which thou shalt bring of thy land that the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name there.

Deuteronomy 30
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Joshua 24
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Choose - Hebrew bachar.

God does it, humans are commanded to do it.

My advice FWIW:
Don't try to figure out if you can or not, just do it when He says to do it.


HankD

 

When speaking about evil: allow vs. cause. God could have stopped evil, but he didn't. Does allowance equal causation? Although God allowed evil to happen, he easily could have stopped it, and thus he remains completely omnipotent and sovereign. I'm no expert, but I think God allowed evil to happen because he knew he would receive more glory in the end than he would have had he prevented it from ever happening.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

 

Well, never heard that.</font>[/QUOTE]Yep - I first read it in the book on the five points of Calvinism by David Steele and Curtis Thomas. The laid out a summary of each of the Arminian ideas and of the church's response to each. The table was reproduced here. Check out #5 on the left, "Falling from Grace".
</font>[/QUOTE]But didn't Arminius believe you could lose your salvation once and then never regain it? So how can there be Arminians who believe you can't lose your salvation?

 

I'm not 100% sure what Arminius believed. His students did believe that. I think Arminians who believe in eternal security are a lot like "4-point Calvinists", who usually deny limited atonement, or sometimes irresistible grace. I think they are just inconsistent. I also think we are all inconsistent about something, though.

 

Whatever, I haven’t read all of Arminius’ stuff, but I do know that Arminius believed that a non-Christian could commit an unpardonable sin. He made the following comment in 1599:

J. Arminius, “A Letter on the Sin Against the Holy Spirit,” The Works of James Arminius, vol. 2, trans. James Nichols (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1986), 746.

This has been an interesting discussion so far. I am writing from a three-point perspective (TUP, not TULIP), and I believe there are two good reasons for believing that free will is possible:

1. God is capable of controlling the universe utilizing the freewill and non-freewill choices of the finite number of actual beings that He decided to create out of an infinite number of imagined beings. God knows with exactitude what people would freely choose to do under imagined circumstances (counterfactual knowledge). An example in the Bible of counterfactual knowledge where God knew with certainty both the actual future and the imagined future is 1 Samuel 23:9-13:

(NASV)

God already knew the actual future; He knew that David and his men would leave Keilah before Saul could come there. God, however, also knew with certainty what the specific events in an imagined future would be if some events in the actual future were changed. David asked God what would happen if he stayed in Keilah (not an actual event). God told David what would happen if an actual event (leaving Keilah) were somehow changed. He said that the people of Keilah would surrender David to Saul. Of course, that surrender of David did not actually happen, but God knew with certainty it would happen if David stayed in Keilah. David had a choice to make, and God already knew what his choice would be. Thus, his choice did not interfere with God’s sovereignty.

Other examples of God’s counterfactual knowledge are found in 2 Kings 13:19, Jeremiah 23:22, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Jeremiah 38:17-20, and Acts 27:22-31.

Five-point Calvinists believe God has complete knowledge of the future because He knows He will cause all human decisions (determinism) so that all human decisions will fit into His sovereign will for the universe. Before the creation of the universe, God was able to imagine all human decisions—those that would actually happen and those that would not actually happen. Imagined human decisions that would not actually happen do not fit into His sovereign plan for the universe, and therefore God does not provide the circumstances under which such imagined decisions could happen. God has always known what the best plan would be for the universe and what His actual causative actions would be.

In the situation regarding the people of Keilah described above, was God imagining the people of Keilah making a particular decision, or was He imagining Himself directly causing them to make a particular decision? I think the answer is obvious. Under the circumstances present up to that point in time when David asked the question, God knew with certainty that the people of Keilah would react in only one way if David stayed in Keilah. If God had imagined Himself intervening at that time and directly causing the people to make a particular decision, then there would have been more than one answer. God would have said, “Well, I can imagine Myself causing them to surrender you, but I can also imagine Myself causing them to protect you.” Nothing would have been certain in such imaginings because God knew David would leave anyway. David was asking God what the people would do, not what God would cause them to do. David did not ask God to protect him if he stayed in Keilah. God was imagining the people of Keilah making the decision. A person could argue that their imagined decision was not a freewill decision; rather, it was a non-freewill decision ultimately caused by Adam’s first sin. In any case, it is important to understand that God is capable with His infinite knowledge of imagining the consequences of all decisions.

Millard Erickson, president of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2002, is a four-point Calvinist, denying only limited atonement, the third point of Calvinism. He commented on God’s foreknowledge of what people could do:

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998), 387.

Of course, in the actual world that God created, from a human’s perspective, several options may be possible, but from God’s perspective, only one option is really possible. Thus, when a human makes a true, freewill choice, his choice is somehow always compatible with God’s sovereign will for the universe.

Out of an infinite number of imagined people, God has always known that He would create a finite number of actual persons (the elect) whom He knew would freely choose to become Christians if they had the opportunity under certain circumstances. He has also always known that He would create a finite number of actual persons (the non-elect) whom He knew would freely choose to reject His offer of salvation if they had the opportunity under any circumstances. Thus, in my three-point Baptist view, God in one sense has always controlled what choices would occur in the conversion process by creating elect individuals whom He knew would react positively with their free will to the influences He would put around them.

God in no way forces the direction of a particular freewill choice, but He controls who will make the choice and when and where the foreknown, freewill choice will be made. This view allows for the coexistence of God’s sovereignty (His ultimate control of everything) with true free will. Again, from the perspective of the person making the freewill choice, the choice of either alternative is possible; but from God’s perspective, only the foreknown choice of one alternative is really possible.

Both five-point Calvinists and the so-called open theists believe that true free will and God’s complete foreknowledge of future events are incompatible. Five-point Calvinists believe that God has complete foreknowledge of future events, so they deny that humans can ever have true free will. Open theists believe that humans have true free will, so they deny that God has complete foreknowledge of future events. In contrast, three-point Baptists like me believe that true free will and complete foreknowledge of future events are compatible.

Classic Arminians say a person is elect because he believes. Conversely, five-point Calvinists say a person believes because he is elect. Three-point Baptists like me disagree with both groups and say that God’s election and His foreknowledge of belief are in accordance with each other. One does not precede the other in either logical or temporal order.

2. As has been hinted at in earlier posts on this thread, God is not the author of evil. If God causes every decision (determinism), including those made by Adam and Satan, then He is the author of evil. Adam made a freewill decision when he committed his first sin. Satan and the other angels were also created in a state where they had free will. God is the only being Who has always been infinitely, independently, completely inclined toward good: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone’ ” (Mark 10:18). God’s elect angels were unblemished by sin at the time Jesus spoke those words recorded in Mark 10:18. In the unblemished sense, the elect angels were good, and therefore God was not the only good being in that sense. Thus, the word “good” that describes God in the Mark 10:18 must mean something more than “unblemished by sin.” The elect angels never have sinned and never will sin. They are permanently unblemished, just like God is. Their unblemished condition at the time Jesus spoke, however, was dependent on God. When Satan fell, all the non-elect angels also fell. The elect angels did not fall, and after their test they were permanently confirmed in a condition in which they were inclined toward goodness. God gave them a permanent inclination toward goodness that made it impossible for them to sin. That permanent inclination was dependent on Him. Norman Geisler, the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and the 1998 president of the Evangelical Theological Society, commented on Satan’s free will:

Norman L. Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1999), 20-21.

In conclusion, God’s sovereign will is certainly accomplished, but it is accomplished by His utilization of both freewill decisions and non-freewill decisions. I do not believe that all human decisions are freewill decisions. In fact, I believe that most are not.

 

Hi Jim,

If you were to pick out the top 10 Calvinist theologians in history, and the top 10 Arminian theologians in history, you wouldn't find a slow learner in the bunch. Insults like this tell more about the insulter than about the insultees.

As the existence of evil, everyone has the same problem. Go all the way back before creation, before Genesis 1:1. There is God and nothing else. His plan is to create the world. Did God know that evil would be a part of His creation? Almost all Christians, of whatever theological leaning, would say that He did know. So, He has a choice - create, and evil comes into existence; or don't create, and evil does not come into existence. And since He created, and the choice was solely His, then we all (Calvinists and Arminians and everyone in between) need to wrestle with how His choice that evil exist can be consistent with His nature. What do you say?

 

The only answer I know of to make the allowance of evil consistent with God's nature is that he receives more glory with it than without it, and therefore has allowed it to exist. Whether or not allowance equals causation is another point. That God could have prevented evil but chose not to mean that he caused it? Or, as koreahog has pointed out, does God choose to utilize freewill and non-freewill decisions to sovereignly control the universe, not necessarily condoning everything that happens in the world, but allowing it nonetheless.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

whatever;
Answer is really simple actually.
God chose to allow evil because He gave every being He created the freewill to choose to obey Him or not.
It was a clear demonstration of His love for all His created beings to give them the freedom to obey Him or not.
You have children? Did you choose to have them knowing they would disobey you? Does that knowledge impede your choice in the slightest? Did that knowledge imply at all that you consent to their disobedience? Does that choice mean that you designed them to disobey? Yet you say this is not the same as God choosing. But it is.
Though God's ways are so much higher than ours, I do not think He intended for us to be so unclear on this. He gave us free will knowing the outcome from the beginning. This does not prove predestination as Calvin would teach you believe.
IMO, Calvin tries to prove too much and leads straight into fatalism. This is gross error.

Without total freedom to choose, you have reduced God to creating nothing more than automatons.

In His service;
Jim

 

Speaking of automatons, here's a relevant quote from C.S. Lewis:

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1943), 37.

 

Jim,

What if you changed "God chose to allow evil ..." to "God decreed to allow evil ..."? How would that be different?

Also, can you prove your assertion that "without total freedom to choose, you have reduced God to creating nothing more than automatons"? Do you think that there was ever a chance that Jesus would not lay down His life for us? If not, how did He really have "total freedom to choose"?

 

Also, can you prove your assertion that "without total freedom to choose, you have reduced God to creating nothing more than automatons"?
------------------------------------------------
The mere fact that God gives choices proves it.
De 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Joh 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

God said, choose life.
Jesus said, {B]I am the...life.[/B]

Pretty simple really. God gives choices. Our resposibitlity is to rightly choose.

Automatons have no choice but to DO what they are programed to do (much like this computer I am typing on. It is PROGRAMMED.) God's sentient beings have choices.

How could it be otherwise, according to Scripture?

Also, a decree is a command. Therefore it is inaccurate to use the word in place of God's choice to allow evil. To use "decree" is to say that God "commanded" evil to exist. He did not.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

To say that He only choose to allow evil to exist does not let Him off the hook, since He knew that evil certainly would exist, and He pulled the trigger anyway.