Faith or Predestination

[Marvin Knox]

Truth is, I have heard a great many scholars get it wrong (not to say that they are not more right than wrong). One of the great things about a true Christian is each and everyone have the ability to read God's Word and come to our own conclusions (whether they be right or wrong).

I believe through the Word (the plumb-line of our faith) the Holy Spirit (which God gifts to all men, providing that they pay attention) and plenty of sources out there to confirm or deny our own thoughts. God made sure that we have all the tools we need to seek truth if that's one of the main things that we're in search of. I like the idea as a believer that I can communicate with God directly and don't need an intermediary (Jesus is our intermediary).

OK.

 

[2tim_215]

OK.

But it seems to me that, since there is an over abundance of cut and paste presentations online from Calvinists and anti-Calvinists alike, both you and Jennifer would want to get a little input from a source who believes and reconciles all of the appropriate scriptures rather than just half of them.

If I get you right, that would be impossible. When it comes to any extensive subject matter, starting from scratch, you have to start out by piecing things together. The gain of knowledge is what I would refer to as an iterative process which you continually build on. You'll never have it all figured out so you gather sources and since which ones make the most sense to and build your conclusions off those. There's really nothing wrong with "cut and paste" in my opinion for three reasons, 1) you don't want to take the credit from the person who came up with the idea or did the research to come to that conclusion you agree with, 2) why re-invent the wheel (if someone's already put in the effort) 3) it saves a lot of typing perhaps and it gives other who either have interest or possibly want to verify the source by which they might glean information that you didn't specify in your identification of whatever it is you're trying to convey to your audience.

If everyone wants to look at scripture only without discussing it and getting input on ways to reconcile the many paradoxical doctrines found it it - then we might as well all just break out our personal Bibles and hunker down behind our own desks - rather than pretend we are seeking truth from the multitude of councilors we might find in forums like this one after a bit of screening to weed out those who don't know how to think for themselves or are simply tolling and looking for a fight.

First off, the verse you quote or paraphrase refers to 1) other believers and 2) not just anyone but a good counselor. In other words, you wouldn't go to a Satan Worshiper for Biblical counseling or to a 12 year old and probably not someone who's an atheist. You'd go to someone who you felt had more knowledge on the subject than you do.

And even then, we should listen to them with a discerning ear. All we can do is yes, try and reconcile with those who are like minded as believers but never compromising on truth and as for those who are not of the same ilk, we can try to speak honestly with them but if it appears that they really aren't interested in hearing a different viewpoint, then what Jesus said, "kick the dust off your sandals and move on" (paraphrasing of course).

To me, this is one of the most difficult things for Christians to do, the reason being I believe is that our belief system is so strong, it's difficult because we can sometimes feel inadequate in presenting the "good news" to those who are in need but may not even be aware that they are. We actually may fear for that person. We need to discern when it's time to let go however.

 

[Marvin Knox]

First off, the verse you quote or paraphrase refers to 1) other believers and 2) not just anyone but a good counselor. In other words, you wouldn't go to a Satan Worshiper for Biblical counseling or to a 12 year old and probably not someone who's an atheist. You'd go to someone who you felt had more knowledge on the subject than you do.

And even then, we should listen to them with a discerning ear. All we can do is yes, try and reconcile with those who are like minded as believers never compromising on truth and as for those who are not of the same ilk, we can try to speak honestly with them but if it appears that they really aren't interesting in hearing a different viewpoint, then what Jesus said, "kick the dust off your sandals and move on" (paraphrasing of course).

To me, this is one of the most difficult for Christians to do, the reason believe that our belief system is so strong, it's difficult because we can sometimes feel inadequate in presenting the "good news" to those who are in need but may not even be aware. We actually fear for that person. We need to discern when it's time to let go.

OK.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Because, even though I am not a 5-pointer, I encounter their "straw man" aruements all the time. For instance:

No Reformed theologian, not even a full on 5-point Calvinist, would say that free choice is a complete illusion. It is only anti-Calvinists who make that false charge against them. I rest my case, as they say.

How is me saying that 'free will is an illusion' is NOT a usual argument by Calvinists, and that I have only met a couple hyper-Calvinists that claimed such a thing, a strawman accusation in some manner that Calvinists believe such a thing in general? That would be the exact opposite claim of what I actually said.

The "non-Calvinist" (make that anti-Calvinist) makes the claim that the Calvinist teaching that sovereignty and free choice are completely compatible (see the WCF statement previously cited) is an oxymoron and that the two concepts can not both be true as expressed.

That's moving the goal post! You claimed that non-Calvinists (anti-Calvinists in your terms) claim free will and God's sovereignty are incompatible. You did not claim they claimed the *Calvinist* interpretations of God's sovereignty and free will are incompatible.

Those are completely different things. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike (hopefully) seek to reach a harmony of scripture and do not think that verses in the Bible conflict or that man making choices is incompatible with God being sovereign. But Christians of many different beliefs (not just Calvinism or one of the other systemized views) may see perceived contradictions in some of the systemized beliefs. To point perceived contradictions out or ask for clarification is NOT the same thing as claiming that God's sovreignty and man's ability to make choices as portrayed in scripture are incompatible.

They often give a bit of lip service about what sovereignty does or doesn't mean to them. For instance they talk about sovereignty allowing for natural processes etc. (as you have in the past). Why they do that I have no idea since Calvinists say the same thing.

It's great that you perceive complete agreement on this issue. I certainly hope you are right, though I would guess it is more one of those things that Calvinists vary in specific view on. Many Calvinists I have engaged in discussion with insist that God's sovereignty demands that the definition of predestination mean pre-determination of every thought and action (not bounding within limits,) some have gone so far as to insist that if God didn't specifically pick and force the motion of every molecule at every moment the universe would implode (fortunately a rarer view,) many have insisted that predestination is incompatible with the idea of all men being able to respond to the gospel in faith, and many have argued that if God is sovereign He must pick who is saved and not saved and make them get saved outside of any human factor like their response to the gospel in faith.

I'll just quote a couple Calvinist's responses from other threads I have been in or seen here and elsewhere:

"I have said my peace, based on scripture and scripture tells me over and over again that God is sovereign and we have no free will whatsoever. Thank you."

"I hope you believe that predestined to be justified is the same as elected to be justified. Without election can one come to the cross? Faith is just an assurance that Jesus has finished everything for the elect on the cross."

"The heresy of free will dethrones God and enthrones man. … The ideas of free grace and free will are diametrically opposed. All who are strict advocates of free will are strangers to the grace of the sovereign God." W.E. Best

"Free will is a myth, our wills are bound to sin. We are born dead in our trespasses and at war with God. There is no mystery, salvation is God's work alone."

"Free will is nonsense." (That's Spurgeon, not a random internet commentator...)

""If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace and he has not learnt Jesus Christ aright." (Spurgeon quoting Luthor)

But they do say that Calvinists can't teach that God decreed and predestined everything that happens in His creation and at the same time allow free choices to men (or other natural processes or "2nd causes") and be consistent.

Challenging that a theory of man doesn't seem consistent, such as the Calvinist interpretations of predestination, God's will, and the will of man, is again not the same thing as claiming that God's predestination as described in scripture is incompatible with men's free choices.

I noticed that you added in a word here though, 'decreed.' Predestination and God's decrees are not the same thing! God might make a decree which He predestines to come to pass, but that is a far cry from saying everything that happens is by God's decree. There are many verses that show men specifically disobeying God's decrees, or doing something that never even entered the mind of God (Jer 7:31.) Indeed, if all that man did conformed to the exact decrees of God, we would never 'miss the mark' (hamartanó, sin) for we would have hit the target He set!

I don't mind defending Reformed doctrine. But I chafe at people who consistently use "straw man" arguments against us.

You have yet to show an example of mine that fits the classic definition of a strawman. A strawman argument would be "All Calvinists believe this; this is why that is wrong" and put words into the theory (or vice versa, such as "anti-Calvinists claim God's sovreignty and man's free will are incompatible.' Posts that respond to a point brought up by a Calvinist, or mention that *some,* but not all, Calvinists have advocated a certain view, or respond to one of the systemized points in TULIP that are published across the internet and in many books, do not classify as strawmen.

I just don't like it when people won't allow us to say what we believe and teach and want to tell us exactly what they believe we believe and teach.

I have seen many threads on this forum, often started by Calvinists, where ample opportunities existed for Calvinists to state their beliefs or clarify their beliefs. I don't see anyone "not allowing" Calvinists to post or state their beliefs.

Unfortunately, I have also seen the problem of a few Calvinists (not all of them) refusing to state or clarify their beliefs. If someone asks a question, those few cry 'strawman!' If someone asks for scriptural support, they either deflect saying something snide like 'look it up!' or copy/paste a few select verses out of context - then refuse to engage in further discussions that challenge their interpretation. Quite a number respond to challenges with insults (that's synergism, that's grieving the Holy Spirit, that's Pelagianism, that's eisegesis, that's not a noble character in wanting to study the Bible for truth, etc.) rather than digging into the harmony of scripture, the Greek word use, the context, etc.

Others not automatically accepting a viewpoint as true isn't disallowing others to post their views. One asking for clarification about a perceived inconsistency in a well-published view is not necessarily a strawman (although I have seen many strawmen arguments launched against Calvinism, too, not every question or challenge is a strawman!)

I have no problem with people asking how I can believe such things. I have a problem with people telling me I can't believe such things and then going on for a complete page to quote scriptures which I have long since consider at length in forming my theology.

Again for the sake of argument, let's assume the best of everyone participating in any such debate and assume that everyone who has come to a somewhat solid viewpoint has also dived into a broad range of scripture, and that those still questioning may actually want the people involved in the discussion to actually post the scripture they use to support their view and discuss why (context, Greek, etc.) they think that it supports their view.

Complaining that others post the scripture they back their view with (Even if you have already considered it prior) makes little sense.

Anti-Calvinist rhetoric and scripture references are readily available. Pro 5-point Calvinist rhetoric and scripture references are readily available.

Again, any systemized view of man can come up with its support verses. The challenge, however, is making sure a theory has no verses which conflict, is harmonious over all of scripture, and that the support verses used to back up a theory fit by context/word use/etc. to the exclusion of other views. 'Anti-Calvinist,' by the way, is not a systemized view. There are many systemized views (5-point Calvinism, Amyraldism, Molinism, Thomism, Arminianism, etc.) - and those not holding to any (or undecided) might hold to a broad range of views.

Someone challenging a view doesn't necessarily mean they are 'anti' or against that view entirely, but rather that they have yet to see it proven or well-supported by scripture in a consistent manner. The Bereans were not 'anti' Paul when they tested his words against scripture.

What is not readily available IMO in a presentation which fairly considers both "sides" of the paradox of the sovereignty of God in all things and the free will of men.

God's sovereignty and man's freewill are not a paradox. You just insisted that Calvinists never believe they are in conflict - yet you describe both as a paradox? A paradox is an impossible logic puzzle because the premises lead to conflicting conclusions. Scripture contains oxymorons (Jesus as both lion and lamb) and rhetorical paradox, but not logical paradoxes - it's harmonious.

As for examining 'sides' - as Christians we do not need to be overly concerned with examining systemized theories and giving each of the half-dozen a fair shot. It can be fun, useful, interesting, etc. - but primarily we need to be focused on examining scripture and walking by the Spirit. If that leads us to lean towards or against a particular systemized view, great! However, our starting point and consistent fall-back should be examining the harmony of scripture on any topic, not starting with a commentary or book presenting a specific viewpoint of man and then filtering scripture through that lens or never challenging the first view we gravitate towards. If we do need to start with a study aid, then finding a neutral book (if possible) is best.

IMO Calvinists dig in their heels to an unwarranted degree on sovereignty vs. free will because they know that the anti-Calvinist view on the subject discounts what the scri'ptures say about the inabilities of fallen mankind. Thus they feel that they simply must stress one side of the equation.

On the other hand I meet, all the time, non-Calvinists who claim that the Calvinist view on the compatibility of the two can't possibly be true.

It is IMO not only unnecessary but unfair to set up "straw men" at the expense of the other side. Calvinists believe in both sovereignty and free will- or at least they should if they are orthodox Calvinists (i.e. proponents of the teaching found in the WCF). Non-Calvinists do not disbelieve in sovereignty and there is no reason for any Calvinist to say that they do.

I agree with your definition and that is the way I have been using it.

Not agreeing with what Calvinists interpret to be the inabilities of man is NOT the same as disagreeing with what scripture says about man's ability. That is a classic strawman argument - the very type of argument you claim to despise, not to mention begging the question.

And claiming that a particular *systemized interpretation* of scripture doesn't seem to be logically consist within its own premises is not a strawman argument - that is rather a fair question in a debate. 'You state X and Y (which the person has stated) - but these premises appear to be conflicting/a paradox' is a valid challenge in a discussion/debate. 'You claim Z' (which the person has never stated) is a strawman.

Other than that, I do agree that ad-hominems and strawmen and other fallacies are frequently engaged in on all sides of any given debate, and they make it a lot harder to discuss a topic through scripture.

Whatever you feel about His providential activity in every portion of His creation - you simply must agree that He fills Heaven and Earth and that absolutely nothing occurs without His intimate involvement - at least in some way even if we can't understand it from our viewpoint.

I'm not so sure I would go so far as to say absolutely nothing occurs without His intimate involvement. Sustaining the universe and every particle by His word? Sure - but that doesn't mandate a personal involvement in every occurrence.

"They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind." Jer 19:5

I don't think it can be said that God was intimately involved with people burning their children in the fire, especially if it never even entered his mind.

God is not only transcendent with His creation. He is also immanent. That's really basic Christians truth no matter how you think it plays out in any particular situation.

God is omnipresent across the universe (And outside of it) and He sustains the natural laws (and other laws) which He has already put into place. Beyond that, He doesn't have to personally operate at the level of every molecule - His words and commands setting those laws into motion and His power to sustain those laws are enough.

I will also make this one particular caveat about your statement above. Every single thing which happens (or is allowed to happen if you will) is indeed chosen by God from an unlimited number of possible things which can happen depending on the actions He Himself chooses to do according to His overall plan for the ages and according to His altogether wise and perfect will.

That's a tough case to prove. Does God cause evil to happen? No. He doesn't even allow moral evil to happen. If He legally permitted it (which is what allowance is,) then it would not miss the mark and hence there would be no judgment for it. Does God allow moral evil?

Nor are there unlimited options from God to choose from for every single thing that happens, as the universe is finite and man is limited. Once God created the universe and set up the natural physical laws, then He effectively bound all variables to a limited number. He can certainly supersede these laws as needed which expands options, but still does not have infinite options as He has bound Himself to His own word and character. For example, He cannot lie, therefore He must fulfill His promises and prophecy must be fulfilled - that's a limited set of variables, not infinite. Or, Jesus was the lamb slain 'from the foundation of the world' - therefore due to what God determined from before time, Jesus had to die.

(I personally lean towards the theory that God collapses possible options into concrete points from His vantage point as the observer outside of time and with regard to His plan and will.)

God has known, from before creation, everything which would happen in history if He did certain things of which there were innumerable choices available to Him. He chose certain things to do in the beginning and every second of history.

Included in that scenario are natural laws which He put into place, including the free will of His creatures.

Since God knew for an absolute certainty exactly what would happen if He chose to do certain things in the beginning and along the way - there was, in the beginning, absolutely no chance whatsoever that what He knew would happen would not happen.

Every happening in history was predestined to occur from the moment that God chose to act in certain ways and not in others.

Pre-limited (as per the Biblical definition) yes, not necessarily pre-determined. Nor did God have to decide everything by prior actions looking forward - as He also can look back over time, and act within time. That is part of His foreknowledge and power as well.

Allowing for the free choices of men before the fall and turning fallen mean over to a reprobate mind are but two of the ways in which God has acted.

Man's free will (limited will) is intact after the fall, but man has the further limitation of being corrupted by sin and being tempted to sin by the knowledge of good and evil. And while every man sins and falls short of the glory of God, man still can choose in specific instances to obey or do good.
Can natural, fallen man do anything that is spiritually good?

Predestination and free will are perfectly compatible just as I and Calvinist doctrine teaches.

I'm a bit confused as to whether you believe them compatible or a paradox given your contrary statements on them. But assuming you believe them compatible - most Christians believe that as well and it isn't a compatibility only held by one side or another. Not all hold to the Calvinist interpretation of the terms, but at least most would agree there is no conflict between the scriptural ideas themselves.

Unfortunately most of your long post, as usual, will go to seed. Why you feel that you must make long, cut and paste presentations on one particular side of subjects like this I really don't know.

I copy/paste in part from other writings I have already done to save time (no use rewriting what I have already written) but I modify as needed to fit the thread or topic. I give long in-depth responses as to the scripture, context, Greek, harmony of scripture, etc. in case there are any people watching the discussion which still have questions on the topic and would like to dive in to scripture to begin a self-study. I generally find this is more useful to people with questions (even if many readers skip it for being too long) than simply asserting my views are correct or responding with one or two sentences.

I and a great many Reformed theologians before me have gone through these concepts many times - some time ago.

Yes, and the church is still split on the issue. A theory being around for a few centuries and held by a number of theologians doesn't make it correct of itself, nor is there any guarantee that they have considered every verse/passage/interpretation possible.

I've told you before that I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through a long cut and paste presentation either refuting or agreeing with each and every point and scripture you care to print.

You certainly don't have to, but any theory does need to be harmonious with all of scripture, not just cling to a few verses and assert that only one specific interpretation of those verses is possible. And even if you do not wish to engage with longer posts, there may be others who are undecided as to their views which will find the discussion useful.

Therefore most of your post is wasted on me as usual. Undoubtedly there are good points in it. But I have made it clear in the past that a lot of your posts will be wased on me if you continue so.

That's OK. I generally find that my responses are more useful to other people watching or participating in the thread than the person I respond to - and that is all right. My main goal is to present other viewpoints and relevant scripture and context - in topics like this I am not really expecting that someone is going to suddenly change his mind on an entrenched view.

I've considered at length most of the Calvinist scriptures and arguments (including hyper Calvinists). I've considered at length most of the non-Calvinist scriptures and arguments (including anti Calvinists).

What seems to often be missing in these "discussions" are the viewpoints of someone who holds the altogether scriptural idea that all of the scriptures presented by both sides are true and all that is needed is to show how they mesh perfectly and do not contradict one another.

I have stated repeatedly that scripture is harmonious and true, and so any theory of man must fit within that lens - not just pick out a verse or two and claim it proves its theory. Now, all scripture being true is *not* the same thing as saying all interpretations of it are true, or all definitions are true, etc. My goal isn't to get two opposing sides to mesh their theories, or even to show how one theory meshes altogether without contradiction, but to examine what scripture says and if any systemized theory meshes harmoniously with all of scripture. I've yet to find one that completely does, but I am still looking over the many, many various theories that are out there.

It seems to me that you have not considered things in this way. You aren't alone of course. Most people can't seem to get out of the "I am of Paul/I am of Apollos" rut when it comes to these subjects and display the Berean attitude which is so pleasing to God.

Not sure what you are talking about, but good example of an ad-hominem. I have stated repeatedly that scripture is harmonious and so there will be no conflict between scriptures. If a theory leads to a conflict with scripture or conflict between points, then it's a problem that theory needs to address, not a failure of scripture verses to be compatible.

 

[Marvin Knox]

How is me saying that 'free will is an illusion' is NOT a usual argument by Calvinists, and that I have only met a couple hyper-Calvinists that claimed such a thing, a strawman accusation in some manner that Calvinists believe such a thing in general? That would be the exact opposite claim of what I actually said.

It's generally only strict determinists that believe that free choice is a complete illusion - I've met a few hyper-Calvinists who thought that, but it doesn't seem to be a common

First off - strict determinism would be the view that everything is strictly entailed by the laws of logic alone. I don’t know of anyone, let alone any Calvinist, who has defended such an extreme form of determinism.

Frankly I doubt that you have either. But, even if you have, no Calvinist (strict or otherwise) would say that "free will is an illusion".

That is the straw man. Absolutely no Calvinist has said that free will is an illusion that I know of.

If you can produce one or two (Calvinists that is) - then I will take the straw man charge back gladly (even if you really haven't met them personally as you said you have).

If someone has- I suspect that they were referring to "free will" in the absolute sense and not in the general way the term is usually used.

That's moving the goal post! You claimed that non-Calvinists (anti-Calvinists in your terms) claim free will and God's sovereignty are incompatible. You did not claim they claimed the *Calvinist* interpretations of God's sovereignty and free will are incompatible.

Here is what I said,
"The "non-Calvinist" (make that anti-Calvinist) makes the claim that the Calvinist teaching that sovereignty and free choice are completely compatible (see the WCF statement previously cited) is an oxymoron and that the two concepts can not both be true as expressed."

I specifically stated that the Calvinist concepts which follows (from the WCF) are said by non-Calvinists to be incompatible.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Do you believe they are compatible? It seems you have been arguing that they are not compatible. For example below you call them "perceived contradictions".

To point perceived contradictions out or ask for clarification is NOT the same thing as claiming that God's sovreignty and man's ability to make choices as portrayed in scripture are incompatible.

While I completely agree with those who say that a great many Calvinists don't express what free will means to them very clearly and that many are simply full of cr**p (even though you personally may not say it exactly that way) - I agree with these particular statements. No will is truly free.

"Free will is a myth, our wills are bound to sin. We are born dead in our trespasses and at war with God. There is no mystery, salvation is God's work alone."

"Free will is nonsense." (That's Spurgeon, not a random internet commentator...)

""If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace and he has not learnt Jesus Christ aright." (Spurgeon quoting Luthor)

God's sovereignty and man's freewill are not a paradox. You just insisted that Calvinists never believe they are in conflict - yet you describe both as a paradox? A paradox is an impossible logic puzzle because the premises lead to conflicting conclusions. Scripture contains oxymorons (Jesus as both lion and lamb) and rhetorical paradox, but not logical paradoxes - it's harmonious.

Calvinists don't believe they are in conflict. They are simply a paradox.

A paradox is not "an impossible logic puzzle because the premises lead to conflicting conclusions". That's a contradiction or perhaps an oxymoron.

A paradox is an apparent contradiction.

Jesus being both lion and lamb is a paradox. It appears at first that both cannot both be true. But on further reflection - they are seen to be completely compatible ("harmonious").

The same is true for the quote from the WCF which tells us what Calvinists believe about the two subjects we have been discussing.

I noticed that you added in a word here though, 'decreed.' Predestination and God's decrees are not the same thing! God might make a decree which He predestines to come to pass, but that is a far cry from saying everything that happens is by God's decree.

I am using decree in the way that it is used by Calvinists (which is why I quoted many times from their Westminster Confession of Faith).
Of God's Eternal Decree
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Used in this way it and "ordain" become, for any practical purpose, the same things as predestining something to happen. In my view and that of Calvinists - that "something" is "everything" which happens in His creation.

To be more precise, I suppose one should really say that God's decree is the very thing which predestines all things in His creation to happen.

What God has decreed to happen is brought to past by the free choices of men and angels (among other God given natural means as referred to in the WCF).

As Calvinists say - the predestination of all that happens in no way does away with natural laws, such as the so called "free will" choices of men, but rather those choices are established in what has been decreed to happen.

...... there will be no conflict between scriptures. If a theory leads to a conflict with scripture or conflict between points, then it's a problem that theory needs to address, not a failure of scripture verses to be compatible.

I fully agree. The statement which I so often quote from the WCF may be a paradox or seeming contradiction. But when all of the pertinent scriptures are considered it is not. I am well able to address any perceived problems with that "theory".

I will not, however, address straw men such as "Calvinism makes men mere robots" or (closer to home) some Calvinists "believe that free choice is a complete illusion"

That will do it for now.

I understand that your long posts are a way of teaching anyone who may be looking on here. But it has been my experience that anyone looking on is even less likely to read and consider all of your long drawn out posts than I am - and I'm dialoging with you.

As I have requested many times, make your posts shorter and on a concise issue at a time or we will not be able or continue here and this may well be it for us.

Of course you may not really want me as an interlocutor.

If that be the case, you can then just post lectures and hope against hope that someone will take the time to read them.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

First off - strict determinism would be the view that everything is strictly entailed by the laws of logic alone. I don’t know of anyone, let alone any Calvinist, who has defended such an extreme form of determinism.

Frankly I doubt that you have either. But, even if you have, no Calvinist (strict or otherwise) would say that "free will is an illusion".

That is the straw man. Absolutely no Calvinist has said that free will is an illusion that I know of.

My point was that the idea that 'free will is an illusion' is NOT a theory of either Calvinists or non-Calvinists, but rather is part of the philosophical theory of strict determinism. You seem upset that I pointed out that it crossover was rare between strict Determinists in Calvinists since I didn't make the blanket claim that there was 'non-existent' crossover. (Which would be a logical fallacy if I had.) One of the local churches I attend is staunchly Calvinist in the leadership department (a mix of five point and four point) - they require all Bible study teachers also hold to Calvinism (4 or 5 point, they don't seem picky on that.) I attended one class to try it out where the teacher gave a couple lessons on Calvinism for two weeks. He was one of those rare Calvinists that do indeed believe free will is an illusion (his own words) and that "If God didn't manually push around every molecule in the universe it would implode" (his own words.) He got extremely upset when I asked some questions about God being able to sustain the laws of the universe by His word and power alone, but it did generate some nice discussion after class. Now, I do not find his views common at all - this is not a tenant of Calvinism! But I have met and discussed with a few who do believe in both Calvinism and strict determinism. It's rare, but not non-existent.

Your belief that there couldn't ever possible be a true Calvinist who also believed in strict-determinism is along the lines of the no-true-scotsman fallacy.

If you can produce one or two (Calvinists that is) - then I will take the straw man charge back gladly (even if you really haven't met them personally as you said you have).

Again, it is not a strawman argument to claim that strict determinism and the idea that free will is an illusion is not part of Calvinism but *rarely* a Calvinist might hold to the other philosophical idea as well. I already quoted a number of Calvinists (including Spurgeon) saying there was no such thing as free will.

However, if you want a more in-depth example: Reasonable Christian: Determinism: The Illusion of Free Will - Sam Harris (Reformed/Calvinist blogger who believes there is no free will and agrees with neuroscientist Sam Harris (though not for the same reasons) that free will is an illusion.

Again, it's not really relevant to the topic since that viewpoint crossover is rare and not an inherant part of Calvinism. I'm not sure why you believe it is a huge deal if a few Calvinists are also strict-determinists.

If someone has- I suspect that they were referring to "free will" in the absolute sense and not in the general way the term is usually used.

In what general way is the term usually used? There are so many differing definitions and no one definition that has broad agreement on. Most boil down to limited will, not free will (where man is limited by his physical, intellectual, and moral nature, etc.)

Here is what I said,
"The "non-Calvinist" (make that anti-Calvinist) makes the claim that the Calvinist teaching that sovereignty and free choice are completely compatible (see the WCF statement previously cited) is an oxymoron and that the two concepts can not both be true as expressed."

I specifically stated that the Calvinist concepts which follows (from the WCF) are said by non-Calvinists to be incompatible.

Here is your exact quote from post #285:

"He can be sovereign and still allow man free will. It is only anti-Calvinists who say that He can't."

*After* I responded to this strange and false charge in post #287, you finally clarified in post #289 - a classic changing of the goal post from your original charge.

Do you believe they are compatible? It seems you have been arguing that they are not compatible. For example below you call them "perceived contradictions".

I don't believe the Calvinist interpretation of the terms free will and the understanding of God's sovereignty as presented in the theory is fully compatible, no. I use the term 'perceived contradictions,' however, because there could always be something in a theory I am misunderstanding or a link that harmonizes them that I have missed.

As for God's sovereignty and man's 'free will' in general, I see no contradiction. (Though I do prefer the term limited will as man is limited by his physical, intellectual, and moral nature.)
Is God sovereign or do we have a free will?

Calvinists don't believe they are in conflict. They are simply a paradox.
A paradox is not "an impossible logic puzzle because the premises lead to conflicting conclusions". That's a contradiction or perhaps an oxymoron.
A paradox is an apparent contradiction.

You may be mixing up rhetorical paradox (such as, 'sometimes you must be cruel to be kind' or 'one thing i know is that I know nothing') with logical paradox. A logical paradox isn't 'an apparent contradiction,' but a premise or premises that contradict within themselves to the point where if it is true it is false, and vice versa.
- paradox - Dictionary Definition

"A paradox is a statement or a concept that seems to be self-contradictory. In Logic, a paradox is a statement that contradicts itself absolutely."
What Is a Paradox? (Definition and Examples)

Jesus being both lion and lamb is a paradox. It appears at first that both cannot both be true. But on further reflection - they are seen to be completely compatible ("harmonious").

It isn't a logical paradox. It's an oxymoron, which is a type of rhetorical paradox.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/oxymoron

I am using decree in the way that it is used by Calvinists (which is why I quoted many times from their Westminster Confession of Faith).
Of God's Eternal Decree
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Used in this way it and "ordain" become, for any practical purpose, the same things as predestining something to happen. In my view and that of Calvinists - that "something" is "everything" which happens in His creation.

To be more precise, I suppose one should really say that God's decree is the very thing which predestines all things in His creation to happen.

What God has decreed to happen is brought to past by the free choices of men and angels (among other God given natural means as referred to in the WCF).

Simply claiming they believe that God can ordain everything that comes to pass without being the author of sin; or that God decrees everything and it must come to pass without harming liberty of second causes; doesn't remove the logical contradiction within those statements.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ordain?s=t
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/author?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty

The confession contains ideas which of their own make the other expressed ideas impossible to be true - a logic paradox. They do not synthesize into a harmonious whole, as the contradiction is merely handwaved away and asserted as not being a contradiction.

As Calvinists say - the predestination of all that happens in no way does away with natural laws, such as the so called "free will" choices of men, but rather those choices are established in what has been decreed to happen.

You seem to be using pre-destination here to mean pre-determining rather than pre-limiting. And what does that statement even mean? And why are you including men's choices under the natural laws of nature? Human choices are limited by the laws of nature, but they are not the same category. Nature cannot disobey God, man can.

I will not, however, address straw men such as "Calvinism makes men mere robots" or (closer to home) some Calvinists "believe that free choice is a complete illusion"

The first is a strawman argument (whcih I do not believe anyone in this thread has yet to propose, though I may have missed it.) The second is not. Note that the first is trying to make a claim about what the *theory* teaches so it can then argue against the strawman and not the actual theory.

The second is a very limited qualifier of what *some very few Calvinists happen to believe as well.* (Not to mention that it was clarified that that was NOT a viewpoint of Calvinism, but rather of strict-determinism, and that there was only rare crossover between a Calvinist also being a strict-determinist.) I am not sure how you can continue to take a claim that Calvinism of itself does *not* teach that free will is an illusion as me making a strawman claim that Calvinism teaches that free will is an illusion???

I understand that your long posts are a way of teaching anyone who may be looking on here. But it has been my experience that anyone looking on is even less likely to read and consider all of your long drawn out posts than I am - and I'm dialoging with you.

I tend to get several private messages in threads like this thanking me or asking for further information or scripture, so I know they are read and considered by some. Plus, I use a lot of what I write here to form more concise/topic specific answers elsewhere where people can respond and they are not going to get lost in the middle of a long forum thread.

As I have requested many times, make your posts shorter and on a concise issue at a time or we will not be able or continue here and this may well be it for us.

I would love to do shorter posts - but am responding to the points you make. I would also prefer to focus more on scripture for and against, or the context of scripture, etc. than be responding to your claims of a 'strawman' argument over something we both agree on (like, that free will being an illusion is not a tenet of Calvinism. Or that most Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike believe that God's sovereignty and free will are compatible. Or that 'free will' is itself a misnomer and man has limits. Etc.) On points where we agree it would be nice to move on.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I would love to do shorter posts - but am responding to the points you make. I would also prefer to focus more on scripture for and against, or the context of scripture, etc.

"The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

What is a natural man and how does a person become otherwise?

"But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:64-65

Is this or is this not the clear answer of God to those who would ask why some believe and other do not believe?

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

"The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

What is a natural man and how does a person become otherwise?

"But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:64-65

Is this or is this not the clear answer of God to those who would ask why some believe and other do not believe?

I Cor 2:6-16, is about "a message of wisdom among the mature," - not among unbelievers. It speaks of how believers have the mind of Christ and the Spirit so they may understand the things of the Spirit. Specifically, that believers may understand the things God has prepared for those who love him, that we may understand what God has freely given us (not get what God freely offers - they already have that), and make judgements about spiritual matters. " I Jn 2:27 shows how the Spirit helps teach us all things. Rom 8:14-16 shows how the Spirit illuminates the believer's relationship as a child of God. Gal 5:16-26 shows how walking by the Spirit guards us against the desires of the flesh. Etc.

Nothing in the passage is about unbelievers being unable to respond to the gospel in faith. It is about the spiritual understanding which believers gain when they receive the spirit.

I already responded to Jn 6:54-65 in depth in post #264 of this thread among other crucial verses in John, but here is an excerpt:

Jn 6:60-67

"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it? Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it has been offered them by the Father.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him."

We see a few things in this section:

- A link between Jesus' ascension and His lifting up before all men
- A statement that the Spirit gives life, and that His words are full of the Spirit and life (not that one needs the Spirit to understand the words, but that the words are full of the Spirit!)
- A reiteration that it must be given/offered/supplied by the Father to come to Christ - man doesn't come on His own
- A statement that despite Jesus' choice, Judas was later to betray Him
- A clarification that Jesus knew from the beginning (foreknowledge) that Judas would betray Him

We see a clarification of -How- the Father gives the ability to come to Christ in the case of the disciples:

"“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me." Jn 17:6-8

We see that in the case of the disciples (one of whom did not believe) that they were previously "The Father's" but the Father gave them to Son! (Could this be speaking of a transfer of dominion/authority?) The Father gave the Word to the Son, the Son gave them the words, and 11 of the 12 received the words and accepted them and believed the Father had sent Christ.

Their faith/belief is specifically linked with receiving the words that Christ was given by the Father as true.


***

The passage doesn't say they can't believe because the Father hasn't given them the ability to. It says they cannot come unless given by the Father (they were the Father's prior, they can't come to Christ unless the Father hands over that authority.) It also shows that they did not believe, even though presented with the same words full of Spirit and life that the disciples who came to believe then. The Father does not give anyone into the Son's keeping unless they have faith (Jn 6:39-40.)

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For it is My Father's will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Those given = those who look to the Son and believe.

 

[2tim_215]

"The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

What is a natural man and how does a person become otherwise?

By becoming born again.
John 3:5-6(KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[Marvin Knox]

By becoming born again.
John 3:5-6(KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Right on!

The fall of man 101 IMO.

The things of God are spiritually appraised and fallen mankind is spiritually dead.

 

[2tim_215]

Right on!

The fall of man 101 IMO.

The things of God are spiritually appraised and fallen mankind is spiritually dead.

Praise God for your spiritual wisdom Marvin!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Nothing in the passage is about unbelievers being unable to respond to the gospel in faith.

Of course it is. The start of the chapter has to do with people originally coming to belief through the power of the Holy Spirit and it ends on the same note.

While it talks about speaking wisdom among those who are mature – it contrasts that spiritual maturity with those who do not have the Spirit of God at all to understand the things of God. That, of course, is why they crucified the Lord of glory – because they could not understand the things of God when presented to them even with miracles.

The passage has to do with “natural” men who lack spiritual life not being able to understand and receive the things of God.

It is about the spiritual understanding which believers gain when they receive the spirit.

Of course it is. Which is why it so clearly teaches what the scripture say elsewhere – namely that no one can receive Jesus as Lord except by the Holy Spirit’s ministry – which He obviously does not extend to everyone in the same way.

I already responded to Jn 6:54-65 in depth in post #264 of this thread among other crucial verses in John, but here is an excerpt:

I won’t spend any time on this portion of your post. Frankly I want it to stand as is so that anyone looking on here can see just how much straining goes into avoiding the implications of a clear statement from scripture concerning election when it does not line up with a preconceived doctrine which denies it.

Besides – in keeping with your desire of taking one or two passages at a time – I’ll move on to a couple of other areas. (“I would love to do shorter posts - but am responding to the points you make. I would also prefer to focus more on scripture for and against, or the context of scripture, etc.)

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48

What does this verse teach about who believes? Please don’t say that those who believed were ordained to eternal life. It doesn’t say that anymore than John 6:37 says that all those who come to the Son are then given to Him by the Father. ("All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”)

Next - setting aside for now your purposefully strained interpretation of what the Lord was clearly telling us in John 6:65 “And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Does the following combination of scriptures reveal anything to us about why some believe and others do not?

“At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.” Matthew 11:25-26

“And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 16:17

“…and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. Acts 16:14

“………no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:3

 

[Butch5]

Romans 9:15 is about election by God's will.

Which is about Israel.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Which is about Israel.

That's right - the choice of Israel while he was still Jacob.

To be more precise - before he was even Jacob.

To be even more precise (if you will agree that Jacob is saved) before the foundation of the world.

Even if we were to agree that the passage is about service and not necessarily about salvation - you still must agree that the passage teaches that that service and the choices and events which made up that service were predestined by God.

(As are all things which happen in His creation - by the way.)

 

[Butch5]

That's right - the choice of Israel while he was still Jacob.

To be more precise - before he was even Jacob.

To be even more precise (if you will agree that Jacob is saved) before the foundation of the world.

Even if we were to agree that the passage is about service and not necessarily about salvation - you still must agree that the passage teaches that that service and the choices and events which made up that service were predestined by God.

(As are all things which happen in His creation - by the way.)

I think you miss the point. Paul is explaining how God is fulfilling His promises to Abraham, not about who is and isn't saved. God chose to use Isaac and not Ishmael. He chose to use Jacob and not Esau. However, we see also that Jacob chose to follow God.

20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
21 So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: (Gen. 28:20-21 KJV)

 

[Marvin Knox]

I think you miss the point. Paul is explaining how God is fulfilling His promises to Abraham, not about who is and isn't saved. God chose to use Isaac and not Ishmael. He chose to use Jacob and not Esau. However, we see also that Jacob chose to follow God.

Of course Jacob chose to follow God.

The choices and events which made up his predestined service to God were predestined by God to occur.

As are all things which happen in His creation.

 

[Butch5]

Of course Jacob chose to follow God.

The choices and events which made up his predestined service to God were predestined by God to occur.

As are all things which happen in His creation.

You can claim that, but unless you can show it from Scripture it's just an opinion. As I said, you miss the point of what Paul is addressing.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

 

[Butch5]

"The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

What is a natural man and how does a person become otherwise?

"But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:64-65

Is this or is this not the clear answer of God to those who would ask why some believe and other do not believe?

Context Marvin, context.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Context Marvin, context.

Exactly.

The context of 1 Corinthians 2 is one which starts and finishes with showing how men without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God.

The context for the John passage is, as Jesus clearly said, understanding the reason why some men come to Him and believe while others do not.