May God "Violate" Your "Freewill"?

[jimmyjimmy]

A common argument for an Arminian or Pelagian view of soteriology is that, "God will not violate man's freewill".

I have two question for discussion in this thread:

1) Is that statement biblically defensible?

2) Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

 

[Phillnb26]

1) Is that statement biblically defensible?

Define biblically defensible. Do you mean is there a specific verse that states that? Then no it's not. If you mean are there examples in the bible? Then absolutely, there's almost never a time when God violates human free will.

Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

By how I understand Calvanism, grace regenerates the chosen and therefore their will then becomes one that chooses salvation. So technically that would "not violate" freewill because one regeneration occurs then their will is for salvation

 

[Aussie Pete]

A common argument for an Arminian or Pelagian view of soteriology is that, "God will not violate man's freewill".

I have two question for discussion in this thread:

1) Is that statement biblically defensible?

2) Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

I do not subscribe to "ists" or "isms". I've no doubt that some of my beliefs fall into some category or other. God is sovereign (I read Spurgeon's sermon on that) Fine. God's will shall be done. Now it is God's will that none should perish but that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Except that leads to Universal Reconciliation theology. I have issues with that, although I would like it to be true. I don't believe it is possible to reconcile these things completely. Every argument has a counter argument. And does it matter? I'm not convinced that it does.

 

[Phillnb26]

And does it matter? I'm not convinced that it does.

That's the key point right there. Christians sometimes seem to spend more time and energy arguing amongst themselves on tertiary issues that they forget there's a lost world that needs Christ's light. At the end of the day, we know God wants salvation for all, all we can is trust on him who brings salvation, grow in godliness each day, and be the salt of the earth. Everything else will works itself out

 

[Basil the Great]

God can do whatever He wishes to do, regardless of what any of us may think.

 

[Rescued One]

Who gave us faith? Who makes the seed grow?

 

[SkyWriting]

A common argument for an Arminian or Pelagian view of soteriology is that, "God will not violate man's freewill".

I have two question for discussion in this thread:

1) Is that statement biblically defensible?

2) Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

God's will shall be done. It seems to you that you have a choice.

But that's a result of time, which God does not need. (Else He'd get old.)

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I do not subscribe to "ists" or "isms". I've no doubt that some of my beliefs fall into some category or other. God is sovereign (I read Spurgeon's sermon on that) Fine. God's will shall be done. Now it is God's will that none should perish but that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Except that leads to Universal Reconciliation theology. I have issues with that, although I would like it to be true. I don't believe it is possible to reconcile these things completely. Every argument has a counter argument. And does it matter? I'm not convinced that it does.

What is the chief weapon of the greatest advisary? Do we face threat from false teachers?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Define biblically defensible. Do you mean is there a specific verse that states that? Then no it's not. If you mean are there examples in the bible? Then absolutely, there's almost never a time when God violates human free will.

These are two examples.

When God controls the heart of the king, he controls thousands of the kings subjects. Not only his subjects but also his enemies and allies.

The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will. (Proverbs 21:1)


Romans 9:9–23

[9] For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” [10] And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, [11] though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—[12] she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” [13] As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

[14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. [17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” [18] So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

[19] You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” [20] But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” [21] Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? [22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— (ESV)​

 

[jimmyjimmy]

God can do whatever He wishes to do, regardless of what any of us may think.

One would think that wouldn't be a disputed point, right?

 

[redleghunter]

1) Is that statement biblically defensible?

No

2) Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

No

 

[bling]

A common argument for an Arminian or Pelagian view of soteriology is that, "God will not violate man's freewill".

I have two question for discussion in this thread:

1) Is that statement biblically defensible?

2) Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

Acts 16:6 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia.

That may not have been Paul’s free will choice at the time.

There is only a very limited amount of autonomous free will and individual needs to fulfill his/her earthly objective so the rest can be extremely directly controlled by God. Mature adults can be set up by God to have the very best opportunity to fulfill their object and refuse to accept the gift and thus take on a lessor objective that helps others with God controlling them fully.

Just point out God’s control of humans does not mean they are completely controlled all the time and in every way. A king can represent the whole nation under him, with national choices be extremely controlled by God without taking away the individual king’s very limited autonomous free will to mentally accept or reject God’s charity. This does not mean every individual is controlled the same way.

If a person does not have just this limited amount of autonomous free will, how would his Love for God not be like a programmed robotic type Love (with no choice)?

Is God’s Love for you like a knee jerk reaction or is it an illogical choice on God’s part, because of who He is? Are you being Loved by a programmed computer?

How can you “Love” like God Loves without it being your personal free will choice?

 

[Josheb]

A common argument for an Arminian or Pelagian view of soteriology is that, "God will not violate man's freewill".

I have two question for discussion in this thread:

1) Is that statement biblically defensible

No.

Not if proper exegesis is practiced.

2) Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

No.

The WCF explicitly states what God ordained from eternity He did...

1) Without being the Author of sin,
2) Without causing violence to the human will,
3) Without causing violence to the contingency of secondary causes.


See Chapter 3, Article 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.


The Calvinist position can be understood by way of a simple analogy: If God has decided that you will stub your toe next weekend then all of the free choices you freely make between now and next weekend will conspire to have you stub your toe next weekend.


Of course, correctly understood, the term "free will" is never understood to mean the human will is autonomous. Neither Arminian nor Calvinist believes in an autonomous will; we both believe in a limited free will. A will that is limited under the more sovereign and almighty will of God and severely compromised by the effects of sin. Both Arminius and Calvin (as well as Augustine, Luther, and Wesley) were all adherents of what we now call the doctrine of "total depravity." Only the Pelagian soteriologies believe sinful humans can come to God without additional aid from God.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What is the chief weapon of the greatest advisary? Do we face threat from false teachers?

Yes, we do face a threat from false teachers. But way too much energy is expended on trying to prove unprovable doctrinal positions. The greatest enemy of the Church is not confusion over election/free will/God's sovereignty and such. It's the divisiveness that such arguments can cause. Some of the great men of God had a falling out over the Rapture theology. Who knows? Who cares? Well, many do care and it is folly. No one know for sure. Pre, Post, No-trib? We will find out one day.

God commands a blessing where the brethren dwell in unity. That does not mean a unity in doctrine. I teach baptism by immersion. It's a no-brainer for me. Yet other happily sprinkle infants. They have a doctrinal basis for doing that. My fellowship with a believer is based on the unity of the Spirit and in love for the brethren. Seriously, it is possible to agree to disagree on many issues. Satan loves to see Christians getting mad at each other. He knows how much it weakens the church.

There are non-negotiable truths that make Christianity what it is. Other than that, I don't believe that we need to fight each other. Save the energy for fighting the real enemy of our souls.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yes, we do face a threat from false teachers. But way too much energy is expended on trying to prove unprovable doctrinal positions. The greatest enemy of the Church is not confusion over election/free will/God's sovereignty and such. It's the divisiveness that such arguments can cause. Some of the great men of God had a falling out over the Rapture theology. Who knows? Who cares? Well, many do care and it is folly. No one know for sure. Pre, Post, No-trib? We will find out one day.

God commands a blessing where the brethren dwell in unity. That does not mean a unity in doctrine. I teach baptism by immersion. It's a no-brainer for me. Yet other happily sprinkle infants. They have a doctrinal basis for doing that. My fellowship with a believer is based on the unity of the Spirit and in love for the brethren. Seriously, it is possible to agree to disagree on many issues. Satan loves to see Christians getting mad at each other. He knows how much it weakens the church.

There are non-negotiable truths that make Christianity what it is. Other than that, I don't believe that we need to fight each other. Save the energy for fighting the real enemy of our souls.

Thanks for the reply.

Certainly, doctrine divides, and I'm glad it does.

The issue underneath the issue when it comes to election is, at its root, works vs faith.

When you "cut" a non-Calvinist he bleeds "legalism". I know because I was one for 20 years, and I know from my experience on forums like this.

Moralalism/legalism is worth arguing someone out of.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Thanks for the reply.

Certainly, doctrine divides, and I'm glad it does.

The issue underneath the issue when it comes to election is, at its root, works vs faith.

When you "cut" a non-Calvinist he bleeds "legalism". I know because I was one for 20 years, and I know from my experience on forums like this.

Moralalism/legalism is worth arguing someone out of.

Yes, there are many who put grace under the Law. Arguing with such people is often futile. I can assure you that not only Calvinists are legalists. I was a member of a Pentecostal church for 5 years. I met some of the hardest, coldest, most legalistic people ever. They also imagined themselves to be free compared the the evangelicals because they waved their hands in the air. Religious pride is an awful thing.

 

[bling]

Thanks for the reply.

Certainly, doctrine divides, and I'm glad it does.

The issue underneath the issue when it comes to election is, at its root, works vs faith.

When you "cut" a non-Calvinist he bleeds "legalism". I know because I was one for 20 years, and I know from my experience on forums like this.

Moralalism/legalism is worth arguing someone out of.

How does the Bible define "work"?

 

[Butterball1]

God can do whatever He wishes to do, regardless of what any of us may think.

The nature of God consists of truth and justice and God cannot go against His own nature, that is, God cannot lie or be unjust.

What if God violated a man's free will causing that man to commit some sin against his will, then God punishes that man for the sin God forced upon that man to do, where is there any modicum sense of justice in that?

 

[Hammster]

The nature of God consists of truth and justice and God cannot go against His own nature, that is, God cannot lie or be unjust.

What if God violated a man's free will causing that man to commit some sin against his will, then God punishes that man for the sin God forced upon that man to do, where is there any modicum sense of justice in that?

He said that God can do whatever He wishes. That’s true.

 

[Butterball1]

He said that God can do whatever He wishes. That’s true.

God cannot go against His own nature, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie or be unjust.
Is it being suggested by some here that God CAN lie and CAN be unjust???