Ask a Philosophical Calvinist Christian

[Tree of Life]

Originally Posted by WCF


It seems to me that there is a bit of subterfuge here. If God has unchangeabley ordained whatsoever comes to pass, then he has unchangeabley ordained that man has lost "all ability of will to any spiritual good". So Calvinist "free will" simply means that man is free to act out of those desires which God has unchangeably ordained that he should have.

God Bless
Jax

Indeed. By "free will" we do not mean that man is in ultimate control of his destiny. That's absurd and unbiblical.

 

[jax5434]

Indeed. By "free will" we do not mean that man is in ultimate control of his destiny. That's absurd and unbiblical.

I agree, and I do not know of any Christians who do mean that by free will. But back to my original comment. If Calvinist free will means that we can only do what God has ordained then doesn't that leave us as simple automatons.

 

[Tree of Life]

I agree, and I do not know of any Christians who do mean that by free will. But back to my original comment. If Calvinist free will means that we can only do what God has ordained then doesn't that leave us as simple automatons.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by automaton. Here are a few definitions I found online:

1: used in similes and comparisons to refer to a person who seems to act in a mechanical or unemotional way.

If what you mean is something like the above definitions then I would say certainly not. God has ordained and created us to be emotional beings.

2: a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of coded instructions, especially one capable of a range of programmed responses to different circumstances.

If what you mean is the above definition then I would still say perhaps. We are created beings (a "machine" of sorts - though I wouldn't call us machines). We do perform a function according to a predetermined plan. Proverbs 16:4 - "The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." (ESV). And we are capable of responding differently to different circumstances.

Automaton seems crass. The Bible calls us image bearers of God, human beings, spirits. But we can do nothing outside the decretive will of God. What about this do you find unbiblical? What about this do you find offensive?

 

[jax5434]

I was using autamaton in the 2nd definition. I agree we are emotional beings but if we do a programmed action emotionally or mechanically what ultimate difference does it make?

Automaton seems crass. The Bible calls us image bearers of God, human beings, spirits. But we can do nothing outside the decretive will of God. What about this do you find unbiblical? What about this do you find offensive?

I don't find it offensive but I do believe this type of free agency is inconsistent with scripture. If you are correct then it means that God frequently, perhaps even usually given the state of our society, prefers sin over holiness. A concept I find no biblical support for.

It would also mean that everyone is always performing the will of God perfectly. Redemption then would mean only that certain people have gone from perfectly carrying out the will of God in one way, to perfectly carrying out the will of God in a different way. And if some were chosen for salvation from before creation then there is no sense in which they were ever lost.

God Bless
Jax

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Find us some person who is without any fault and we'll be able to give you an answer.

I was responding the Calvinist perspective as stated below:

His choice depends on nothing within the creature but entirely upon his free, wise, gracious love.

Bizarre.

 

[Tree of Life]

I was responding the Calvinist perspective as stated below:

His choice depends on nothing within the creature but entirely upon his free, wise, gracious love.

Bizarre.

Why do you imagine that God chose to save you and not another?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Why do you imagine that God chose to save you and not another?

God gives ALL men the opportunity for salvation. I'll leave it up to him who he saves. I hope that I will pass the test, but until then I will continue to press on toward the prize.

We choose to cooperate with God's free gift of grace or to reject it.

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't find it offensive but I do believe this type of free agency is inconsistent with scripture. If you are correct then it means that God frequently, perhaps even usually given the state of our society, prefers sin over holiness. A concept I find no biblical support for.

Just because sinners seem to prosper before judgment does not mean that God prefers sin over righteousness. Consider Psalm 73:

Truly God is good to Israel,
to those who are pure in heart.
But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled,
my steps had nearly slipped.
For I was envious of the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.

For they have no pangs until death;
their bodies are fat and sleek.
They are not in trouble as others are;
they are not stricken like the rest of mankind.
Therefore pride is their necklace;
violence covers them as a garment.
Their eyes swell out through fatness;
their hearts overflow with follies.
They scoff and speak with malice;
loftily they threaten oppression.
They set their mouths against the heavens,
and their tongue struts through the earth.
Therefore his people turn back to them,
and find no fault in them.
And they say, “How can God know?
Is there knowledge in the Most High?”
Behold, these are the wicked;
always at ease, they increase in riches.
All in vain have I kept my heart clean
and washed my hands in innocence.
For all the day long I have been stricken
and rebuked every morning.
If I had said, “I will speak thus,”
I would have betrayed the generation of your children.

But when I thought how to understand this,
it seemed to me a wearisome task,
until I went into the sanctuary of God;
then I discerned their end.

Truly you set them in slippery places;
you make them fall to ruin.
How they are destroyed in a moment,
swept away utterly by terrors!
Like a dream when one awakes,
O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms.
When my soul was embittered,
when I was pricked in heart,
I was brutish and ignorant;
I was like a beast toward you.

Nevertheless, I am continually with you;
you hold my right hand.
You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will receive me to glory.
Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

For behold, those who are far from you shall perish;
you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you.
But for me it is good to be near God;
I have made the Lord GOD my refuge,
that I may tell of all your works.

It would also mean that everyone is always performing the will of God perfectly.

This is where we would make a distinction between God's decretive will and his prescriptive will. Those who disobey are obviously failing to obey the will of God in a prescriptive sense. But it is indeed impossible to resist his decretive will. Paul touches on this issue in Romans 9:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 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?” 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? 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, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

God has mercy on whoever he chooses and he hardens whomever he chooses. This decision depends not on man, but on God. So then some will ask: why does God find fault with us if we cannot resist his will? (The same question you're asking now). Paul's answer: Who are you to question the designs of the creator? Doesn't God, as creator, have a right to create some for the purposes of displaying his wrath and power and others for the purposes of displaying his mercy?

 

[Tree of Life]

God gives ALL men the opportunity for salvation. I'll leave it up to him who he saves. I hope that I will pass the test, but until then I will continue to press on toward the prize.

We choose to cooperate with God's free gift of grace or to reject it.

So on what does your potential salvation depend?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

So on what does your potential salvation depend?

Cooperating with the grace of Jesus.

 

[Tree of Life]

Cooperating with the grace of Jesus.

Cooperating is an interesting word. Could you unpack its meaning?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Cooperating is an interesting word. Could you unpack its meaning?

God's grace reaches out to all men. We have the opportunity to cooperate with God's grace and remain in the love of Jesus.

We do this by striving for holiness, seeking to pick up our cross and follow Jesus. When we fall, we seek forgiveness and continue to fight the good fight.

Jesus walks with us and helps us to know his will.

Romans 12
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

 

[bhsmte]

I cannot say. And there is no reason to think that any of us knows exactly how God works his will...or that men have been given to know everything he does or will do.

Wouldn't it be the case then, that if no one really know how God works, then you don't really know if he predestines anyone to be saved by grace either, correct?

 

[jax5434]

Just because sinners seem to prosper before judgment does not mean that God prefers sin over righteousness. Consider Psalm 73

:
It's not a matter of sinners prospering. Its the matter that God has ordained and decreed that sin be committed.

This is where we would make a distinction between God's decretive will and his prescriptive will. Those who disobey are obviously failing to obey the will of God in a prescriptive sense. But it is indeed impossible to resist his decretive will. Paul touches on this issue in Romans 9:

James 1:8 " a doubled minded man is unstable in all his ways" How much more so then a double minded God?

God has mercy on whoever he chooses and he hardens whomever he chooses. This decision depends not on man, but on God. So then some will ask: why does God find fault with us if we cannot resist his will? (The same question you're asking now). Paul's answer: Who are you to question the designs of the creator? Doesn't God, as creator, have a right to create some for the purposes of displaying his wrath and power and others for the purposes of displaying his mercy?

Romans 9:1-4English Standard Version (ESV)

God's Sovereign Choice
9 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[a] my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.

Romans 11:25-26

The Mystery of Israel's Salvation
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

Romans 9-11 is a treatise on the nation of Israels' status under the new covenant. It has nothing to say to the Christian Church or individual Christians.

But you still have not addressed what significance the concept of redemption has in your view.

God Bless
Jax

 

[bhsmte]

God's only criteria is his own sovereign choice and love. His choice depends on nothing within the creature but entirely upon his free, wise, gracious love.

And, what is it that gives you confidence, your opinion on this is correct?

 

[Albion]

And, what is it that gives you confidence, your opinion on this is correct?

We're dealing in oversimplifications now--on both sides. But that's not necessarily wrong to do. Would you agree to that for the sake of discussion?

Then, let's say no one on either side knows for sure. OK?

BUT, don't you see that God being in charge, sovereign, autonomous, etc. is much more credible than its opposite? I'd describe that opposite concept as having a God who gives us a shot at eternal life, but it's not guaranteed so we have to work at it all our lives, with no real assurance of what it will take, all the while Satan is working diligently--and with a much greater success rate--to deceive all mortals.

We all know the usual church scenario about how to get to heaven and who makes it there...and if it's accurate, God is neither actually in control nor more powerful than Satan. Is that what we actually believe?

I think that the reason people resist the idea that God is all in all is because we all have pride and want to think we do some of the work that it takes to get anyone to heaven. Yes, even those Christians who belong to reformed churches that teach Sola Fide unconsciously think that way.

 

[bhsmte]

We're dealing in oversimplifications now--on both sides. But that's not necessarily wrong to do. Would you agree to that for the sake of discussion?

Then, let's say no one on either side knows for sure. OK?

BUT, don't you see that God being in charge, sovereign, autonomous, etc. is much more credible than its opposite? I'd describe that opposite concept as having a God who gives us a shot at eternal life, but it's not guaranteed so we have to work at it all our lives, with no real assurance of what it will take, all the while Satan is working diligently--and with a much greater success rate--to deceive all mortals.

We all know the usual church scenario about how to get to heaven and who makes it there...and if it's accurate, God is neither actually in control nor more powerful than Satan. Is that what we actually believe?

I think that the reason people resist the idea that God is all in all is because we all have pride and want to think we do some of the work that it takes to get anyone to heaven. Yes, even those Christians who belong to reformed churches that teach Sola Fide unconsciously think that way.

What I have trouble reconciling, is when some describe God in some form or fashion and how he acts in one light and then shortly after will state; we can't know how God acts or why he does.

I know why some believers do this, because if you have faith in a God, there is a need to understand him, in your own way, otherwise the faith doesn't amount to much. On the other hand, when certain questions arise about this God that can be difficult to answer, the default position then becomes; no one can really know God, how he acts and why.

To me, that seems more like psychological gymnastics, than anything else.

 

[Albion]

What I have trouble reconciling, is when some describe God in some form or fashion and how he acts in one light and then shortly after will state; we can't know how God acts or why he does.

Well, the situation is not quite like you worded it there. We do know certain things about God because we have the testimony of the Bible guiding us. When we turn to a question about 'how does God decide whom to predestine? or 'how do I know for sure that I am saved?' we are inquiring into the things of God that he did NOT reveal to us. There really is no contradiction in that.

I know why some believers do this, because if you have faith in a God, there is a need to understand him, in your own way, otherwise the faith doesn't amount to much.

I agree. It's a perfectly "human" thing to do. We want to know everything, even those matters that God did not choose to reveal to us (probably because we are incapable of comprehending them in this life). And it's very difficult for the ordinary mortal to let it go.

On the other hand, when certain questions arise about this God that can be difficult to answer, the default position then becomes; no one can really know God, how he acts and why.

That sounds like you're calling it some kind of cop out, but I'm saying that some things can be known and some cannot. What we have to do is discern which are which and discipline ourselves to be satisfied with that.

If we were to sit down and ponder how long eternity is or where the universe ends, we could drive ourselves nuts. Thing is, we don't do that because we don't care about the answers all that much. But let the questions be about religion and which denomination....Katie bar the door! THEN we just have to have an answer for everything.

And why? Because religion knows no boundaries. We accept that there is a limit to science or our ability to reach the end of the universe. We never think that "insight" into the smallest details of religious belief or practice are beyond Man or that it's OK that they should be.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, the situation is not quite like you worded it there. We do know certain things about God because we have the testimony of the Bible guiding us. When we turn to a question about 'how does God decide whom to predestine? or 'how do I know for sure that I am saved?' we are inquiring into the things of God that he did NOT reveal to us. There really is no contradiction in that.


I agree. It's a perfectly "human" thing to do. We want to know everything, even those matters that God did not choose to reveal to us (probably because we are incapable of comprehending them in this life). And it's very difficult for the ordinary mortal to let it go.


That sounds like you're calling it some kind of cop out, but I'm saying that some things can be known and some cannot. What we have to do is discern which are which and discipline ourselves to be satisfied with that.

If we were to sit down and ponder how long eternity is or where the universe ends, we could drive ourselves nuts. Thing is, we don't do that because we don't care about the answers all that much. But let the questions be about religion and which denomination....Katie bar the door! THEN we just have to have an answer for everything.

And why? Because religion knows no boundaries. We accept that there is a limit to science or our ability to reach the end of the universe. We never think that "insight" into the smallest details of religious belief or practice are beyond Man or that it's OK that they should be.

Well, if one is to put credibility into what man wrote in stories about God as credible (and many do, because it is essential to believing), I can understand why they come up with certain descriptions of God, etc.. Then, you get into, how each person interprets scripture and we all know interpretations are all over the map, hence so many denominations that have an interpretation they are comfortable with.

I don't begrudge anyone that has faith in a God and I understand their need to put their own definition on it, because again, the faith wouldn't amount to much without some sort of self understanding of what they believed in.

I don't know if I would call it a cop out, I would call it more of a self rationalization a person goes through, to be able to reconcile their own specific faith beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Well, if one is to put credibility into what man wrote in stories about God as credible (and many do, because it is essential to believing), I can understand why they come up with certain descriptions of God

Of course. If we think there is no God or that we have no way of knowing anything at all about him, it makes everything so simple--don't believe anything about God. Period. Finis.

But if we have a certain revelation, that is what we base our conclusions upon.

In this case, we are asked why some people who do believe the Bible cite it for the answer to some questions but say that we "don't know" when asked some other questions. I was told that this looks convenient or contradictory.

I explained that it's not that.

It's all a matter of what is IN that revelation that our religion is based upon. If it's there, we can answer the question. If it's not "covered," we obviously cannot answer unless the inquirer wants a pure guess...which many people are not comfortable giving, and I find that stance to be entirely logical, not at all a "cop out.".