Calvinism and Free Will

What don't you understand?

 

Many (by no means all of them Calvinists) do not believe that sin is the exercise of free will contrary to God's will. Charles Wesley, in his hymn, "And Can it be that I should Gain?" wrote:

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, (not: "I execised my free will to get rid of them")
My heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.



​

Martin Luther wrote a book called "The Bondage of the Will". More importantly, God's Word in Romans 6.17-18 talks of Christians as those who were slaves (that is, in bondage) to sin but who had been set free from sin to be slaves of righteousness.

By the way, which question do you mean when you say, "I agree that I can't understand how a Calvinist would answer this question."?

 

Don't attribute silence to anything, Q. Some of us have participated in this debate long before your pompous, condescending attitude (and that's exactly how you come across, BTW) showed up. But it gets tiring and time consuming, and I need the rest and also the time to do other more fruitful things. Q, do not get too overconfident in this little skirmish where you triumphantly rub it in other people' faces that they are getting "frustrated" by the inherent "weakness" of their theology. Do you really think that your postings here are going to rid the world of the evil Calvinists? Go on thinking that, little Q. Meanwhile, you should chew on some articles by John Piper who can say and teach it better than most of us:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/

 

Wow! Just another example of Calvinism dividing the body of Christ per Paul's 1Cor 1-3 warnings!

And there are so many more like me who would go to a Calvinist-assumptions church and I say "Hi" coming in and "Bye" going out. I just do not know what relevance such speculations on decrees, foreordination, etc. has to Christ's work on earth.

skypair

 

Sproul was memorable on this but confessed he was only speculating. And he did blame God without assigning Him the responsibility.

As I recall (I notice you haven't come back with Sproul's argumentation yet), he also gives the better opposite view that they had free will and chose for themselves. "But that just couldn't be right," he said, "because nobody can say how sin entered the world." :BangHead:

I find Sproul interesting to read because he majored in philosophy and he will give the opposing view to his own but he always dismisses the scriptural answer for his more convoluted explanation of it. And he will try to "run you in circles" around his hypothesis till you are too tired to object! :laugh:

skypair

 

He did assign responsibility to God. It will probably be a while before I can quote it. I moved and the book is in a box somewhere in a big pile of boxes in the garage.

 

You really have the nerve calling someone out on their condescending attitude.
BTW, when did John Piper become any kind of authority?

 

You know what I find extremely amusing? People on here defend what is undeniably a logical contradiction (God can choose not to be sovereign over something and yet remain sovereign). They argue that we're too pea-brained to understand the complexities of how God views sovereignty.

Yet when someone says God can change the inclination of a being so that being ends up sinning of its own will (not FREE will, but will), they refuse to see it as anything but God being the author of sin (as if God, Himself, sinned). What happened to our pea-brains, here? We're too limited to understand a plain logical contradiction, but we're smart enough to bridge the gap between God changing a being so that it will sin -> God directly creating some "thing" called "sin" which is not even a thing at all? How did we get so smart all of a sudden?

 

You're not serious.

The biblical explanation is that God created angels and men as free moral agents who, realizing their own independence, could contemplate serving self rather than God.

But obviously, they are independent in both directions -- good and evil. The Bible says that, after the fall, Adam and Eve would know good and evil, evil being the thing they learned that was "new" (ostensibly they would learn to be worse as they learned more).

Now I know that doesn't make sense to your theology. I'll be very surprised, therefore, if that is acceptable to you.

skypair

 

I posted his article because it addresses some of the issues being discussed in this thread. I could ask the same question about all of us - since when did Webdog, npetreley, Andy T., Quakenbush, or any of us become any kind of authority? So why post anything at all, if none of us can be established as some kind of authority?

You are always free to post articles from opposing viewpoints, BTW.

 

Ah! That's going to be my "sweet dilemma" in about a week! Getting out of Memphis to Texas -- retiring -- everything in boxes. I envy/pity you! :laugh:


skypair

 

True. So God reliquishes sovereignty over our lives yet His purposes still come to pass. Is that what you are saying? I've said that all along -- that God is sovereign over the consequences of our good or evil. Not "responsible" for it (as in "Author") because that belongs to man. But He has decreed how He will respond to our good and evil and He still can, beyond that, show mercy and grace upon anyone or any nation, etc. that He chooses to.

First off, you assume that God changed man's inclination toward sin, pea brain! :laugh: Is it not patently clear that Satan, the serpent, did that? And that Satan, as Lucifer, changed his own inclination on account of self-pride?

He doesn't change our "inclination" to good unless we believe, npetrely. When we repent and "incline" ourselves toward God, then He comes in and changes all our "inclinations." But that was our hope" when we first believed, right? IOW, we wouldn't have inclined ourselves toward Him without believing.

It's like you said, sin is anything averse to God. The origin of that is independent will that has 2 options: 1) self will or 2) God will. Self will tells itself that it can exist apart from God's direction. And to an extent, it can. That is what God was seeking -- a people to fellowship with that were like Him but not Him.

Do you consider that in eternity past, God was alone? The reason for creation mirrors the reason why it wasn't good for Adam to be alone -- it is not good for God to be alone either. From whence comes His glory that you so desire for Him if He has no one to glorify Him? if He remains alone?

skypair

 

Actually, that's the opposite of R.C. Sproul Jr.'s argument. I don't want to say too much because I might get it wrong, but I'm pretty sure he argued that God originally made satan good, so satan's original inclination was good. Satan could not have changed his own inclination because his inclination was good to begin with, and he therefore had no inclination to change it to something other than good. That leaves only one suspect in the case of "who changed satan's inclination"?

 

Can man choose sin?

Can man choose to kill?

BBob,

 

To you, but with others, some agreeing and some disagreeing with me theologically, I have challenging and pleasant debates. Possibly the problem is with the way in which you are receiving me. It is worth considering.

Rub it in other people's faces? Let's see, I get called names, unwarranted, and simply recognize the person's frustration and I'm guilty of what? Astonishing in all your business with being offended you forgot to be offended by those busy "name calling" (but then as I read above...well never mind now I see why).

Secondly, who said anything about ridding the world of Calvinists? This is a message board for debate and discussion. This isn't the entire world, just a handful of people.

Thirdly, though I disagree with Piper and have read him I respect his diligence and theological offerings in other areas in which he excels. Understand, I formerly held to the tenets of Calvinism so I am not unfamiliar with its popular proponents.

Listen, instead of prescribing to me motives or attitudes of pomposity, if truly you have limited time why not just stick to the topic?

 

God knowing something would happen and God permitting it to happen does not make him the source of it. Whether it be sin or your choosing to eat Corn Flakes, you are the source of the decision making and action.

Again, this ultimately reflects what properties one holds to regarding Divine Sovereignty. And I contend that it is the ill-constructed definition and erring concepts of Divine Sovereignty that leads to injury to other doctrines and the debilitation of resolution regarding related question such as this.

 

I said it was through the will of the being whose inclination was changed by God. The only difference is that you think it's free, and I don't. I don't get what you don't understand.

 

I did so by posting the Piper article on the two wills of God. I think it is an angle that has not been presented here in this thread, so I posted it. I could try to put it in my own words, but I have neither the time nor talent. Feel free to dissect the article and argue against it, because my beliefs pretty much line up with it.