Do Most Protestants Disagree with the Notion of Free Will?

[iLogos]

The problem with Calvinism is basically this, they attempt to place God in a box. Predefined, or as they prefer, predestined. In their sense of being, God can not be Sovereign and provide free will to His creation. They can't see God do more then two things at the same time!

That there is predestination, election, calling and chosen ones is undeniable. BUT to use a broad brush and in effect design such a system of theology as to explain every mechanical workings of God and outline His Will in such detail from various verses about these subjects, and use a patch work system to apply this theology across the board, then even further assign it a 5 Point criteria and name it after a man is absurd!

First of all O man, God is at Liberty to work any way He wants to and you can not confine Him to your points or system. Just as there are infinite number of dimensions and all we see are the 3 physical dimensions plus time and gravity of you count them as a dimensions, there is also a possibility of unlimited, infinite number of dimensions we do not know about and O man, GOD transcends all of that and more! God is verry capable of providing His creation free will AND remain Sovereign and always in complete control! Imagine that! Well of course some can't imagine that, they can only imagine a 5 point system designed by a finite man

Peace!

 

[alphanoodle]

The problem with Calvinism is basically this, they attempt to place God in a box. Predefined, or as they prefer, predestined. In their sense of being, God can not be Sovereign and provide free will to His creation. They can't see God do more then two things at the same time!

That there is predestination, election, calling and chosen ones is undeniable. BUT to use a broad brush and in effect design such a system of theology as to explain every mechanical workings of God and outline His Will in such detail from various verses about these subjects, and use a patch work system to apply this theology across the board, then even further assign it a 5 Point criteria and name it after a man is absurd!

First of all O man, God is at Liberty to work any way He wants to and you can not confine Him to your points or system. Just as there are infinite number of dimensions and all we see are the 3 physical dimensions plus time and gravity of you count them as a dimensions, there is also a possibility of unlimited, infinite number of dimensions we do not know about and O man, GOD transcends all of that and more! God is verry capable of providing His creation free will AND remain Sovereign and always in complete control! Imagine that! Well of course some can't imagine that, they can only imagine a 5 point system designed by a finite man

Peace!

It's ironic, beloved, that with the same language you accuse 'Calvinists' of in boxing God in, you have boxed in all who believe in God's sovereignty. I doubt you can fit any two people in such a small box about any creed, whether they be democrats and republicans, communists, martial artists, or musicians. Don't you think there may be a diversity among those whom you label Calvinists, which may afford a more open minded debate, rather than writing them all off by labeling and pre-defining their views? The odd thing is that you will probably never meet a person who believes in Sovereignty who has even read Calvin. I haven't met one, and I myself haven't read his very extensive work; however, I have heard that within his Christian Insitutes, out of about 1500 pages, only 69 are devoted to this one topic, so even Calvin would be amazed that people are labeled Calvin. Not to mention, there were plenty of teachers, like Augustine, who subscribed to the view long before Calvin discovered it. Martin Luther also taught that view, so why do we label people who, like myself, simply picked up the bible one day and were convinced that this thread, this facet, this pattern of God's nature and dealing with man appeared throughout it? I was in a cult - the churches of christ, when I made the discovery, and they by no means believe it, nor had I ever heard of such a doctrine or that there was a person in history called Calvin, or that a debate was raging about it. Will you then please pay me the same christian courtesy that you wish us to 'Calvinists' to pay to your view of God. I am one man, one bible, no knowledge of Calvin. Can we talk believer to believer about what we see in the verses of the bible, and not use philosophy or party rhetoric, or predefined, pre-existent doctrines to sort it out? We may be like those blind men, each groping at different parts of the elephant without realizing that it was one and the same, singular beast. I am always ready to accept that I am wrong or extreme. In my view, all men are wrong and only God is right. Please don't be angry, beloved sibling and truth-seeker.

 

[myhopeisfound]

That there is predestination, election, calling and chosen ones is undeniable. BUT to use a broad brush and in effect design such a system of theology as to explain every mechanical workings of God and outline His Will in such detail from various verses about these subjects, and use a patch work system to apply this theology across the board, then even further assign it a 5 Point criteria and name it after a man is absurd!

Peace!

ilogos, Do you know the reason Calvin wrote the points? Why there were five and not six or seven? Why it was he that wrote the five points and not someone else?

 

[myhopeisfound]

It's ironic, beloved, that with the same language you accuse 'Calvinists' of in boxing God in, you have boxed in all who believe in God's sovereignty. I doubt you can fit any two people in such a small box about any creed, whether they be democrats and republicans, communists, martial artists, or musicians. Don't you think there may be a diversity among those whom you label Calvinists, which may afford a more open minded debate, rather than writing them all off by labeling and pre-defining their views? The odd thing is that you will probably never meet a person who believes in Sovereignty who has even read Calvin. I haven't met one, and I myself haven't read his very extensive work; however, I have heard that within his Christian Insitutes, out of about 1500 pages, only 69 are devoted to this one topic, so even Calvin would be amazed that people are labeled Calvin. Not to mention, there were plenty of teachers, like Augustine, who subscribed to the view long before Calvin discovered it. Martin Luther also taught that view, so why do we label people who, like myself, simply picked up the bible one day and were convinced that this thread, this facet, this pattern of God's nature and dealing with man appeared throughout it? I was in a cult - the churches of christ, when I made the discovery, and they by no means believe it, nor had I ever heard of such a doctrine or that there was a person in history called Calvin, or that a debate was raging about it. Will you then please pay me the same christian courtesy that you wish us to 'Calvinists' to pay to your view of God. I am one man, one bible, no knowledge of Calvin. Can we talk believer to believer about what we see in the verses of the bible, and not use philosophy or party rhetoric, or predefined, pre-existent doctrines to sort it out? We may be like those blind men, each groping at different parts of the elephant without realizing that it was one and the same, singular beast. I am always ready to accept that I am wrong or extreme. In my view, all men are wrong and only God is right. Please don't be angry, beloved sibling and truth-seeker.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THis is exactly what I wanted to say but I'm not as well spoken as you. Thankyou! I'm so disgusted with the "calvinist" talk. I believe what the Bible says, not b/c Calvin told me to! AND like you said, there are so many other men who have held the same views as him, why does he get the slanderous talk directed at him and his writings? I don't use the little TULIP icon b/c I think when people who hold a different view as Calvinist see it, they are automatically rolling their eyes and ready to start a smackdown.

I like where you asked if you could talk believer to believer and discuss the Bible w/out the labels hooked onto the discussiion BEFORE you even begin the discussion..."Oooh this person puts God in a box. He must be a Calvinist..." "Oooooh, this person thinks the three primary colors are Ford Blue, John Deere Green and Primer Gray. He must be redneck." As so on and so forth...

 

[alphanoodle]

ilogos, Do you know the reason Calvin wrote the points? Why there were five and not six or seven? Why it was he that wrote the five points and not someone else?

Personally, though I'm eager to hear your answer, I'm more curious about how God is able to allow free will and still be Sovereign, since Sovereignty, as we understand it; is by definition the dominion over everything.
We have a strange image of God's authority in the church today that tries to equate foreknowledge to sovereignty. It says that because God knew in advance what man (and I gather, all things) would do, he adjusted things to affect and influence those free radicals until it turned out according to His will. This makes God the reactor, and not the designer, the subject, and not Sovereign. It suggests that he is subject to our decisions, and cannot intervene by overriding our wills , or else he will have violated some divine law that supersedes his own will.
If God cannot control wills, then he can neither design, nor is he truly Sovereign, since there is something in his creation that he does not have the power over. Do we suggest that he does not have the power, or that he doesn't have the right?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Personally, though I'm eager to hear your answer, I'm more curious about how God is able to allow free will and still be Sovereign, since Sovereignty, as we understand it; is by definition the dominion over everything.
We have a strange image of God's authority in the church today that tries to equate foreknowledge to sovereignty. It says that because God knew in advance what man (and I gather, all things) would do, he adjusted things to affect and influence those free radicals until it turned out according to His will. This makes God the reactor, and not the designer, the subject, and not Sovereign. It suggests that he is subject to our decisions, and cannot intervene by overriding our wills , or else he will have violated some divine law that supersedes his own will.
If God cannot control wills, then he can neither design, nor is he truly Sovereign, since there is something in his creation that he does not have the power over. Do we suggest that he does not have the power, or that he doesn't have the right?

I'm sorry, I can not take this argument seriously.

If there was no such thing as freewill, we would not be having this discussion; and there would be "universal" salvation; if such were the case, there would be no point in continuing this discussion.

Christian Forums is proof, in and of itself, that free will exists!

 

[iLogos]

ilogos, Do you know the reason Calvin wrote the points? Why there were five and not six or seven? Why it was he that wrote the five points and not someone else?

Of course I do. I've read many books on the topic.

Have you read my post?

 

[iLogos]

It's ironic, beloved, that with the same language you accuse 'Calvinists' of in boxing God in, you have boxed in all who believe in God's sovereignty. I doubt you can fit any two people in such a small box about any creed, whether they be democrats and republicans, communists, martial artists, or musicians. Don't you think there may be a diversity among those whom you label Calvinists, which may afford a more open minded debate, rather than writing them all off by labeling and pre-defining their views? The odd thing is that you will probably never meet a person who believes in Sovereignty who has even read Calvin. I haven't met one, and I myself haven't read his very extensive work; however, I have heard that within his Christian Insitutes, out of about 1500 pages, only 69 are devoted to this one topic, so even Calvin would be amazed that people are labeled Calvin. Not to mention, there were plenty of teachers, like Augustine, who subscribed to the view long before Calvin discovered it. Martin Luther also taught that view, so why do we label people who, like myself, simply picked up the bible one day and were convinced that this thread, this facet, this pattern of God's nature and dealing with man appeared throughout it? I was in a cult - the churches of christ, when I made the discovery, and they by no means believe it, nor had I ever heard of such a doctrine or that there was a person in history called Calvin, or that a debate was raging about it. Will you then please pay me the same christian courtesy that you wish us to 'Calvinists' to pay to your view of God. I am one man, one bible, no knowledge of Calvin. Can we talk believer to believer about what we see in the verses of the bible, and not use philosophy or party rhetoric, or predefined, pre-existent doctrines to sort it out? We may be like those blind men, each groping at different parts of the elephant without realizing that it was one and the same, singular beast. I am always ready to accept that I am wrong or extreme. In my view, all men are wrong and only God is right. Please don't be angry, beloved sibling and truth-seeker.

Ironic is the assumption from Calvinists if some one doesn't agree with them then obviously they don't understand Calvinism lol.

 

[myhopeisfound]

Of course I do. I've read many books on the topic.

Have you read my post?

The posts in this thread, yes. I don't see any that explain why Calvin has five points or why he even did it in the first place . He did not just sit down one day and say, " Hmmmm, I'm bored. I'm going to risk my life developing a system of theology with five points, name it after myself in hope of causing argument after argument between fellow brothers and sisters in Christ until the Savior returns...Oh, this is going to be so fun!!!"

 

[iLogos]

The posts in this thread, yes. I don't see any that explain why Calvin has five points or why he even did it in the first place . He did not just sit down one day and say, " Hmmmm, I'm bored. I'm going to risk my life developing a system of theology with five points, name it after myself in hope of causing argument after argument between fellow brothers and sisters in Christ until the Savior returns...Oh, this is going to be so fun!!!"

How do you know that's not how it happened?

 

[myhopeisfound]

How do you know that's not how it happened?

Hmmmmmmm...now THAT would be funny!

...but it is my free will choice to believe that that is not how it happened...

 

[iLogos]

Hmmmmmmm...now THAT would be funny!

...but it is my free will choice to believe that that is not how it happened...

well it could have been predestined to have happened that way, we see what a prankster God can be some times

 

[Eroc1966]

It is God's desire all men be saved. Christ died for all men's sins. This being said, the Holy Spirit moves men to repentance, which when so moved, we either repent and accept Christ, or do not. Once we've accepted Christ, we surrender
our lives to Him.."It is not I who live but Christ who lives in me."

It is this point that we should be surrendering our will, and becoming slaves (dulos-grk) to Christ. Putting His will always before our own.

We are either in bondage to sin, or slaves to Christ.

P.S. All Baptist churches do not hold to the doctrine of election. We do embrace the once saved always saved teaching however.

 

[iLogos]

It is God's desire all men be saved. Christ died for all men's sins. This being said, the Holy Spirit moves men to repentance, which when so moved, we either repent and accept Christ, or do not. Once we've accepted Christ, we surrender
our lives to Him.."It is not I who live but Christ who lives in me."

It is this point that we should be surrendering our will, and becoming slaves (dulos-grk) to Christ. Putting His will always before our own.

We are either in bondage to sin, or slaves to Christ.

P.S. All Baptist churches do not hold to the doctrine of election. We do embrace the once saved always saved teaching however.

One of my favorite preachers is Baptist, David Jeremiah, he's even a Calvinist, but a verry soft one and never makes it a talking point.

I agree with what you said.

 

[myhopeisfound]

One of my favorite preachers is Baptist, David Jeremiah, he's even a Calvinist, but a verry soft one and never makes it a talking point.

I agree with what you said.

Hey ilogos! One of my all time favorite books is Captured by Grace by Dr. Jeremiah. It was the first time I truly understood what "grace" was/is. Love to listen to him on the radio, as well.

 

[bottomofsandal]

It's ironic, beloved, that with the same language you accuse 'Calvinists' of in boxing God in, you have boxed in all who believe in God's sovereignty.

alphanoodle,


Greetings in Christ Jesus dear brother !!!


As a collection of dust I certainly am not worthy to question The Potter's handiwork. God's Sovereignty is His to define and exercise according to His goodwill and pleasure. Being that the government of God is a not a democracy, but a Theocracy, God can do as He pleases and is not in any way accountable to man or obligated to explain or justify His perfect actions. Job got cheeky with God and the result was a barrage of questions and FYIs thrown at him in a torrential blitzkrieg.

IMHO, there is more that is being contested here than Sovereignty and freewill. Like the wheels of the Egyptian chariots it is easy to get stuck in the mud with the obfuscation of these two points and neglect the other arrows in the quiver that are anxiously awaiting to be delivered. The other arrows that will be employed are the problem and origin of evil, and the desires of God appearing to be in conflict with each other, specifically God wanting to save all men, yet simultaneously not executing His will to do so.



I better stop...getting off topic in my first post !!!

 

[alphanoodle]

It's ironic, beloved, that with the same language you accuse 'Calvinists' of in boxing God in, you have boxed in all who believe in God's sovereignty.

alphanoodle,


Greetings in Christ Jesus dear brother !!!


As a collection of dust I certainly am not worthy to question The Potter's handiwork. God's Sovereignty is His to define and exercise according to His goodwill and pleasure. Being that the government of God is a not a democracy, but a Theocracy, God can do as He pleases and is not in any way accountable to man or obligated to explain or justify His perfect actions. Job got cheeky with God and the result was a barrage of questions and FYIs thrown at him in a torrential blitzkrieg.

IMHO, there is more that is being contested here than Sovereignty and freewill. Like the wheels of the Egyptian chariots it is easy to get stuck in the mud with the obfuscation of these two points and neglect the other arrows in the quiver that are anxiously awaiting to be delivered. The other arrows that will be employed are the problem and origin of evil, and the desires of God appearing to be in conflict with each other, specifically God wanting to save all men, yet simultaneously not executing His will to do so.



I better stop...getting off topic in my first post !!!

Yeah, I found myself trying to track two threads of the same relative topic and forgetting the second part and main focus of your post. I came to conclude for myself that God exerts his will on two levels: His sovereign will, and His written, or revealed will. We know what God's will and nature is according to His revelation, but if God did not have a separate will at operation, then he would enforce his revealed will, and the world would indeed be robots. But just because we aren't robots, doesn't mean that God does not harden hearts, or cause strong delusions so that people carry out their unregenerate wills, though they violate God's revealed law. I just think that if we aren't under the unconscious control of God as believers, at least we have more freedom of will than sinners, because the old man is not a gentleman, but a slave driver, while we are free to 'do what is right'.

 

[bottomofsandal]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THis is exactly what I wanted to say but I'm not as well spoken as you. Thankyou! I'm so disgusted with the "calvinist" talk. I believe what the Bible says, not b/c Calvin told me to! AND like you said, there are so many other men who have held the same views as him, why does he get the slanderous talk directed at him and his writings? I don't use the little TULIP icon b/c I think when people who hold a different view as Calvinist see it, they are automatically rolling their eyes and ready to start a smackdown.

I like where you asked if you could talk believer to believer and discuss the Bible w/out the labels hooked onto the discussiion BEFORE you even begin the discussion..."Oooh this person puts God in a box. He must be a Calvinist..." "Oooooh, this person thinks the three primary colors are Ford Blue, John Deere Green and Primer Gray. He must be redneck." As so on and so forth...

Well said MHIF !!!



The kneejerk reaction and condemnation to/of what is falsely portrayed as Calvinism is not surprising. It is common place on forums everywhere. The 5 points of Calvinism were in response to The Five Articles of Remonstrance. Calvinism is not a Bible study tool, nor was it developed as such, neither is it a Theology. Often well meaning folks get Hyper-Calvinism confused with Calvinism. Sometimes terminology such as fatalism or determinism are erroneously substituted for predestination. I have realized in dialogue with people that they actually subscribe to what is called Open-Theism and this is why they oppose God’s Sovereignty as The Supreme Being in control of His universe. It is yet another attempt to harmonize the origin and implementation of evil, God's love, and safe-guarding of man's freewill.

According to OT it is imperative that man be truly free, since real love demands it. I do not know anyone that has an absolutely freewill, only Adam and Eve would qualify. After the fall we have a limited freewill, but even this will is not free since it is governed by the heart and mind, not vice versa. The will is a servant to the heart and mind. The mind controlled by The Spirit is life and peace. Ergo, the will is really not “free” to do as it pleases.

 

[alphanoodle]

[According to OT it is imperative that man be truly free, since real love demands it. I do not know anyone that has an absolutely freewill, only Adam and Eve would qualify. After the fall we have a limited freewill, but even this will is not free since it is governed by the heart and mind, not vice versa. The will is a servant to the heart and mind. The mind controlled by The Spirit is life and peace. Ergo, the will is really not “free” to do as it pleases.[/quote]

I totally agree. You know, it's worth noting how that we so-called Calvinists come to the same conclusions independently, from merely reading the scriptures, while those who oppose us seem to be all over the road with philosophical and emotional views, often crossing over the line into Calvinism, and then reversing it when they realize they have just assigned God too many rights.
You have stated something that I did in another post in different words, but parallel; that when we are born of God, he gives us new natures; namely, his heart of flesh, and puts his spirit in us so we, not only can, but will do his will. Ezekiel 36. This is the only hope to not fail to keep the law as Israel did. We are made new men, with the law of God integrated and hardwired into our souls. That precludes freewill in the same way that an unregenerate sinner is hardwired to sin and reject God's law, even if he is s teacher of the law, because he is 'in the flesh' Rom 7, 8. These things are biblical, and the bible comes together nicely with them. The bible would be only a few pages wide otherwise. I just read another scripture, in the Psalms that testifies to it. Psa 105:25 He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants. This even attributes the evil will of sinners to the Sovereign will of God.
The problem is really that people confuse 'desire' with 'will'. They think it is wrong of God to impose his will, because that would mean contradicting our desire; but in that God controls 'their hearts' it is clear that he not only turns the volition, but the desire as well. We do it because we want to do it, and we love it. When God gives Joseph, or Daniel or captive Israel favor in the sight of their captors, he must involve their will and their affections.
'The heart of princes is as rivers of water in the hand of God, turning them this way and that.' Amen

 

[alphanoodle]

[According to OT it is imperative that man be truly free, since real love demands it. I do not know anyone that has an absolutely freewill, only Adam and Eve would qualify. After the fall we have a limited freewill, but even this will is not free since it is governed by the heart and mind, not vice versa. The will is a servant to the heart and mind. The mind controlled by The Spirit is life and peace. Ergo, the will is really not “free” to do as it pleases.[/quote]

I totally agree. You know, it's worth noting how that we so-called Calvinists come to the same conclusions independently, from merely reading the scriptures, while those who oppose us seem to be all over the road with philosophical and emotional views, often crossing over the line into Calvinism, and then reversing it when they realize they have just assigned God too many rights.
You have stated something that I did in another post in different words, but parallel; that when we are born of God, he gives us new natures; namely, his heart of flesh, and puts his spirit in us so we, not only can, but will do his will. Ezekiel 36. This is the only hope to not fail to keep the law as Israel did. We are made new men, with the law of God integrated and hardwired into our souls. That precludes freewill in the same way that an unregenerate sinner is hardwired to sin and reject God's law, even if he is s teacher of the law, because he is 'in the flesh' Rom 7, 8. These things are biblical, and the bible comes together nicely with them. The bible would be only a few pages wide otherwise. I just read another scripture, in the Psalms that testifies to it. Psa 105:25 He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants. This even attributes the evil will of sinners to the Sovereign will of God.
The problem is really that people confuse 'desire' with 'will'. They think it is wrong of God to impose his will, because that would mean contradicting our desire; but in that God controls 'their hearts' it is clear that he not only turns the volition, but the desire as well. We do it because we want to do it, and we love it. When God gives Joseph, or Daniel or captive Israel favor in the sight of their captors, he must involve their will and their affections.
'The heart of princes is as rivers of water in the hand of God, turning them wherever he wants it to go' Amen