"All"

[Jon_]

Saying that we don't have any choices goes beyond what Calvinism necessitates. I'll give a quotation from a Reformed work. The author said that he holds "a traditional Reformed position with regard to questions of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, the extent of the atonement, and the question of predestination" (p. 16 in the work quoted below).

Scripture nowhere says that we are "free" in the sense of being outside of God's control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. [...] Nor does it say we are "free" in the sense of being able to do right on our own apart from God's power. But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free—we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make choices.

—Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, p. 331).
​

You've said that "there aren't any choices for us to make," and Grudem said that it is erroneous to conclude that "we cannot really make choices." I don't know if your statement is within the bounds of Calvinism, but at least some Calvinists disagree with you.

Grudem isn't at all saying what you are trying to make him say. His statement here perfectly parallels what I've been saying: that man's choices are only choices from man's perspective. God has already foreordained everything that comes to pass, but sense man is incredibly limited in his understanding, he still perceives that his day-to-day actions warrant discrimination on the part of his free will to bring about effect. This perception is relative. You have heard it said that perception is reality. This is true in the context of free will. We understanding that we willingly choose the things we do within the capacity that we are capable to do them, but the true is that God has already ordained the choice before we are even confronted with it.

This is among the core principles of Calvinism and I subscribe to it whole-heartedly. The problem is that you are trying to interpret this viewpoint according to your own. You are trying to resolve conflict according to the traditional sense of free will when that traditional definition has been flawed all along.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TSIBHOD]

Grudem isn't at all saying what you are trying to make him say. His statement here perfectly parallels what I've been saying: that man's choices are only choices from man's perspective. God has already foreordained everything that comes to pass, but sense man is incredibly limited in his understanding, he still perceives that his day-to-day actions warrant discrimination on the part of his free will to bring about effect. This perception is relative. You have heard it said that perception is reality. This is true in the context of free will. We understanding that we willingly choose the things we do within the capacity that we are capable to do them, but the true is that God has already ordained the choice before we are even confronted with it.

This is among the core principles of Calvinism and I subscribe to it whole-heartedly. The problem is that you are trying to interpret this viewpoint according to your own. You are trying to resolve conflict according to the traditional sense of free will when that traditional definition has been flawed all along.

No, I've read what Grudem said about our free will and how he thinks that it is different from the common perception of free will. I understand what he means by our "choices." But the fact remains that Grudem said that we do have choices by which we truly do effect things, and you said that we don't have choices to make. At the least, it appears that you've misrepresented yourself by what you said, and you actually do agree with Grudem. The other possibility is that you accurately represented what you mean and you don't agree with Grudem.

Grudem said that while we can't make choices "outside of God's control," "we make willing choices, choices that have real effects." You said that because our actions "have already been preordained by God," and "ince God foreknows our every reaction to future events, there really aren't any choices for us to make." Do you see the difference? Grudem said that although are actions are foreordained (they are inside God's control), we still make free choices, although they are not to be understood under the common definition of "free choice." You said that because our actions are foreordained, we have no real choice at all and that our perspective just provides us with merely apparent choices that aren't real.

 

[Jon_]

Grudem said that while we can't make choices "outside of God's control," "we make willing choices, choices that have real effects." You said that because our actions "have already been preordained by God," and "ince God foreknows our every reaction to future events, there really aren't any choices for us to make." Do you see the difference?

Now you're beginning to take things out of context. The specific context of the discussion was whether or not men had effectual choice concerning their destiny. This is derived from the illustration that God puts a fork in front of men and gives them the option of which road to take. In truth, while we do make an effectual choice according to our perspective, God has already ordained the choice, therefore our choice is not effectual in a universal sense. The primary point I am trying to make is that there are not choices that men make that were not preordained by God.

Perhaps I read more into your argument than I should have. If that's the case, then I apologize. The tone and nature of the language you used seemed to indicate to me that you thought man had effectual choice concerning his fate, which is incorrect. Man's choices are consequential.

Grudem said that although are actions are foreordained (they are inside God's control), we still make free choices, although they are not to be understood under the common definition of "free choice." You said that because our actions are foreordained, we have no real choice at all and that our perspective just provides us with merely apparent choices that aren't real.

They aren't real in the truest sense, i.e. God has already made them. They are equivocal only according human perspective. Does man make conscious choices? Yes, of course. Do man's choices matter? Again, yes. Do man's choices affect the course of God's plan? That we answer with a resounding no. Man is held accountable for his own choices, but God has already preordered them according to his foreknowledge. That God has already established his plan does not leave us with excuse for our lack of liberartian free will (which is where I sensed you stumble in the logic of choice thread). Paul affirms this:

(Romans 9:19-20 KJV) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
​

The most important thing to remember is that man's will is consequential, not effectual.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TSIBHOD]

Now you're beginning to take things out of context. The specific context of the discussion was whether or not men had effectual choice concerning their destiny. This is derived from the illustration that God puts a fork in front of men and gives them the option of which road to take. In truth, while we do make an effectual choice according to our perspective, God has already ordained the choice, therefore our choice is not effectual in a universal sense. The primary point I am trying to make is that there are not choices that men make that were not preordained by God.

Perhaps I read more into your argument than I should have. If that's the case, then I apologize. The tone and nature of the language you used seemed to indicate to me that you thought man had effectual choice concerning his fate, which is incorrect. Man's choices are consequential.


They aren't real in the truest sense, i.e. God has already made them. They are equivocal only according human perspective. Does man make conscious choices? Yes, of course. Do man's choices matter? Again, yes. Do man's choices affect the course of God's plan? That we answer with a resounding no. Man is held accountable for his own choices, but God has already preordered them according to his foreknowledge. That God has already established his plan does not leave us with excuse for our lack of liberartian free will (which is where I sensed you stumble in the logic of choice thread). Paul affirms this:

(Romans 9:19-20 KJV) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
​

The most important thing to remember is that man's will is consequential, not effectual.

Okay. I can better understand this.

 

[Jon_]

Okay. I can better understand this.

Okay, great. I wasn't sure if I had explained it well enough.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon