"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[cygnusx1]

What you try to pass off as Calvinism has no resemblance to what Calvinism actually is, so there is no reason to try and refute it. I doubt that any Calvinist here will waste any time trying to refute straw man arguments, half-truths, and outright misrepresentation.

and this guy (RG) has the brass neck to say elsewhere "this thread is NOT about Calvinism" ...... he needs to listen to his own words once in a while

 

[Hismessenger]

The only Fatal flaw in the predestination theory is the lack of understanding by those who say it cannot be because they place their finite understanding on an infinite God who creation is running just as He planned it too. Everything being already decided by His divine will. Can that be accepted without understanding, YES.

hismessenger

 

[expos4ever]

The only Fatal flaw in the predestination theory is the lack of understanding by those who say it cannot be because they place their finite understanding on an infinite God who creation is running just as He planned it too. Everything being already decided by His divine will. Can that be accepted without understanding, YES.

hismessenger

I do not follow this argument. I do not believe that God is the sole fully sufficient cause of every event in the Universe. In other words, I do believe that there are other "wilfull" agents in the universe (such as human beings) who really do have a measure of "free will".

But I do not hold this position because I think the alternative "cannot be". Of course, it is indeed possible that God fully determines what happens. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this view (and there are other problems with it as well).

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

Maybe the problem you have with faith is your definition or how man uses faith.
Men such as Enoch, Noah, Rahab, Abraham and Cornelius all had faith. They had a knowledge of God and then believed in it. We can believe IN something but we also need to believe in the sense of trust or reliance.
All men have the first, but what they do with that knowledge in accepting and to rely upon it makes a believer. Faith of this kind is built upon reason. One must have reason to trust in that which he has knowledge of.
Jesus as He began His ministry clearly assumed that all men could believe. The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the Gospel. Mark 1:15
All through His ministry Jesus asked men to believe. Believe in Him. After Pentacost, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon all flesh. All men are being called by the Holy Spirit. It would be impossible to believe if man did not have the knowledge of God, which Paul says all men have, and that God is requiring of all men to make a choice. Use the faith given to believe. Accept Christ this day, NOW! Paul alludes to it in Rom 12:3.
Christ redeemed mankind, freeing mankind from the bondage to death and sin which had held man captive. All men have the ability and capability to respond to Christ. That ability and responsibility will be charged to them at the judgement. God is not capricious in that He demands of man something that they cannot do and then hold them responsible for it.
This may not fit your reformed theology but it does align with scripture and as scripture has been understood since the beginning with the Apostles.

 

[nobdysfool]

I do not follow this argument. I do not believe that God is the sole fully sufficient cause of every event in the Universe. In other words, I do believe that there are other "wilfull" agents in the universe (such as human beings) who really do have a measure of "free will".

I think you're framing the argument in such a way as to lend support to your contrarian view. Given a God who is (as He has revealed Himself to be) Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, it would not seem reasonable to therefore assume that He is not the source, either permissively or actively of all that is, all that has or will happen, or exerting control and guidance and direction over the actions of men. He states in His word that He will accomplish all that He wills, and Purposes to do. No man can stay His hand, or question Him with any authority. God is not limited by the free actions of men, either by choice or by necessity, which is the logical conclusion of the the thinking of many who oppose the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of scriptures.

That does not mean that men do not have a measure of free will, because it is evident that they do. But men, being finite, and not omniscient and omnipotent, do not have the freedom that some would like to believe, to act as they will, with no constraints or limitations.

All men act and choose according to their desires, which spring from the state of their hearts. God knows this, and utilizes this, thereby causing His Purpose to come to pass while not directly interfering with the choices of men. God can shape those choices by controlling which choices are available, knowing what will be chosen from the choices available, such that men freely choose to do what God has ordained. Thus men are responsible for their choices, and God accomplishes that which He desires.

But I do not hold this position because I think the alternative "cannot be". Of course, it is indeed possible that God fully determines what happens. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this view (and there are other problems with it as well).

This is a very liberal mindset, "keeping an open mind", "considering all the possibilities", and ultimately deciding that it doesn't matter exactly what one believes, as long as they believe "something". Allowing that God may indeed "fully determines what happens" sounds good, but underlying this train of thought is the caveat, "but that can't really be the way it is". There has really been no credible alternative to the Calvinist/Reformed view shown here, certainly nothing that would withstand the kind of scrutiny that could and should be brought to bear on it.

 

[expos4ever]

I think you're framing the argument in such a way as to lend support to your contrarian view. Given a God who is (as He has revealed Himself to be) Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, it would not seem reasonable to therefore assume that He is not the source, either permissively or actively of all that is, all that has or will happen, or exerting control and guidance and direction over the actions of men.

First of all, I do not accept the premise that God has revealed Himself to be Omnipotent, at least not unless that claim is further explained. I think most people think this means that God can do "anything He wants to do." I think that such a view is probably mistaken - I think that when God makes certain commitments - for example that He will the Universe this way and not that - His own commitments in this respect constrain what He can do in the future. I suspect that in the very act of creation, God imposes limits on His future freedom to act. To get into this in detail is something I do not want to do in this post.

However, let me give an example. I believe that the reason why it took thousands of years from the fall of Adam to the triumph of the Cross was because, in virtue of how He had "set the Universe up", God simply could not "snap his fingers" and restore fallen Creation to its pre-fallen state. He may have had no choice but to undertake the lengthy plan of redemption using Israel to lead to Jesus. It is in this sense that I would question bald claims that God is "omnipotent".

I will address the rest of your post in a later post, but from a scanning of it, I think we agree on the manner in which God accomplishes His purposes while still granting man some freedom.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

What you try to pass off as Calvinism has no resemblance to what Calvinism actually is, so there is no reason to try and refute it. I doubt that any Calvinist here will waste any time trying to refute straw man arguments, half-truths, and outright misrepresentation.

It may not align with your brand of Calvinism as who really knows how many versions there might be with each person interpreting for themselves.
But unfortunately, 400 years of Calvinistic theology belies your statement. It is also historical fact of the predominate theology of Calvinism. Maybe you just don't understand the ramifications of such a theology when it is juxaposed alongside of what Scripture actually means and has been understood outside of Calvinism.
It is not just Calvinism that has become relativistic, but all of protestantism has this fault. It stems from the one thing all protestants have in common. Sola Scriptura. Man, individual man, has become the authority over what he believes, how he believes and in whom he believes from a common source, the Bible. Man can determine his own personal gospel based on his own personal interpretation. Four hundred years and we have so many variations one can hardly count the number today.
This is why you have just stated, that this is not what I believe. So what, thousands believe differently solely on the basis of their personal interpretation. It is why one cannot speak for another christian today because no one knows what the other christian believes. Yet, Christianity is a unified faith, a single faith and has always been so. What I explain today would have been fully understood by someone in the early Church. I can speak for all Christians the world over and they would all know of what I am saying. It is because Christianity is a universal Gospel, given once, for all, for all time. It has been preserved, unchanged, by the Holy Spirit in time. It is quite obvious, reasonable, and logical to assume that it was not man that was able to do this over a 2000 year period.
We have such an opposite example in just 500 years with the Roman Catholic Church, but the best example of man being in charge is protestantism for the next 500 years.
This does not misrepresent Calvinism in the least. Calvinism stands on its own in whatever version a person would like to to be. But when explained within the Gospel as it was proclaimed by the Apostles, preserved in time by the Holy Spirit to this day, Calvinism is a very long way from that Gospel. That you disagree is a free choice you have as a human being. That is why you are discussing it today. It is called Calvinism or Reformed Theology, it is called that because it is a version of the real Gospel which does not bear a man's signature. It is the Gospel according to Christ. It is not Paul's Gospel or Peter's or Apollos and surely not Calvin's or Luther's or any other protestant's interpretation of that Gospel.

 

[expos4ever]

God knows this, and utilizes this, thereby causing His Purpose to come to pass while not directly interfering with the choices of men. God can shape those choices by controlling which choices are available, knowing what will be chosen from the choices available, such that men freely choose to do what God has ordained. Thus men are responsible for their choices, and God accomplishes that which He desires.

When you refer to "what God ordained", you are, by your own argument, clearly not holding the position that God has ordained every event. That's fine, as long as we understand each other on this - you have stated that men have "choices". Fair enough, but this means that God cannot have ordained everything. I think we will agree that those things He actually has ordained cannot be overturned by any choice of man. I have some concerns about your statement about being responsible for choices, but I think that would be a bit of a tangent.

 

[expos4ever]

But I do not hold this position because I think the alternative "cannot be". Of course, it is indeed possible that God fully determines what happens. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this view (and there are other problems with it as well).

This is a very liberal mindset, "keeping an open mind", "considering all the possibilities", and ultimately deciding that it doesn't matter exactly what one believes, as long as they believe "something". Allowing that God may indeed "fully determines what happens" sounds good, but underlying this train of thought is the caveat, "but that can't really be the way it is". There has really been no credible alternative to the Calvinist/Reformed view shown here, certainly nothing that would withstand the kind of scrutiny that could and should be brought to bear on it.

I have never written anything remotely close to what you seem to be ascribing to me in this extract from your post. I have no idea who you are addressing here.

 

[nobdysfool]

When you refer to "what God ordained", you are, by your own argument, clearly not holding the position that God has ordained every event. That's fine, as long as we understand each other on this - you have stated that men have "choices". Fair enough, but this means that God cannot have ordained everything. I think we will agree that those things He actually has ordained cannot be overturned by any choice of man. I have some concerns about your statement about being responsible for choices, but I think that would be a bit of a tangent.

Actually, the statements are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to want to believe. There is no necessary conflict between God ordaining everything and men freely choosing. What is perceived as conflict is confusing God's perspective with man's. If God didn't ordain everything, ultimately, then it is unavoidable that God's Creation is subject to randomness beyond His control or intent. He must continually apply "correction" and "adjustments" to keep it moving in the general direction that He wants, but He can only ordain certain events, and even those are subject to the force of randomness. I have heard it argued that the crucifixion was ordained, but the events leading up to it were not. That makes no logical sense. Stop and think about it.

You're making a lot of observations "against", but offering very little in the way of actual support "for" your alternatives. Perhaps it's time to start making your case with substance, rather than defining it by what you disagree with.

 

[nobdysfool]

I have never written anything remotely close to what you seem to be ascribing to me in this extract from your post. I have no idea who you are addressing here.

I can see that it's quite possible that you aren't aware of where your thinking leads to logically. That's not a slam, that's just making my own observation. It is equally obvious that you find some of my conclusions and extensions of what I perceive you to be saying to be offensive to you. If I am not understanding you correctly, please show me why, rather than just say "I have no idea who you are addressing here". You know very well I am addressing what I perceive you to be saying.

As I have pointed out before, I think you need to start fleshing out your alternative views, rather than just defining them by what you oppose. I mean no disrespect, I am just tired of having to deal with straw men and misunderstood views, and want to see some real substance from you as to what you actually do believe.

 

[nobdysfool]

nobdysfool,


It may not align with your brand of Calvinism as who really knows how many versions there might be with each person interpreting for themselves.
But unfortunately, 400 years of Calvinistic theology belies your statement. It is also historical fact of the predominate theology of Calvinism. Maybe you just don't understand the ramifications of such a theology when it is juxaposed alongside of what Scripture actually means and has been understood outside of Calvinism.

Your constant appeal is to an authority in addition to God's Word, which you place absolute faith in, whether you realize it or not. As such the authority you appeal to is ex scriptura and on that basis, you and I are appealing to two different authorities, hence the disagreement. It is a fallacy to claim that the authority I appeal to is myself. That's completely ridiculous.

t is not just Calvinism that has become relativistic, but all of protestantism has this fault. It stems from the one thing all protestants have in common. Sola Scriptura. Man, individual man, has become the authority over what he believes, how he believes and in whom he believes from a common source, the Bible. Man can determine his own personal gospel based on his own personal interpretation. Four hundred years and we have so many variations one can hardly count the number today.

That is also one of the "talking points" the EO position constantly holds up as "proof" that what they believe is the only correct belief. In this, the EO position is similar to the so-called "three legged stool" of Catholicism: Scripture, Tradition, and Papal proclamations. This is why, apart from the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to convince the Catholic of the errors in their position, because they always run to another authority when one is shown to be wrong. The talking point rests on a fallacy.

This is why you have just stated, that this is not what I believe. So what, thousands believe differently solely on the basis of their personal interpretation. It is why one cannot speak for another christian today because no one knows what the other christian believes. Yet, Christianity is a unified faith, a single faith and has always been so. What I explain today would have been fully understood by someone in the early Church. I can speak for all Christians the world over and they would all know of what I am saying. It is because Christianity is a universal Gospel, given once, for all, for all time. It has been preserved, unchanged, by the Holy Spirit in time.

And it is an article of faith that you believe this to be so, yet you can offer no objective proof of this "fact".

It is quite obvious, reasonable, and logical to assume that it was not man that was able to do this over a 2000 year period.
We have such an opposite example in just 500 years with the Roman Catholic Church, but the best example of man being in charge is protestantism for the next 500 years.

This completely ignores and misstates what the Protestant Reformation was actually based on.

This does not misrepresent Calvinism in the least. Calvinism stands on its own in whatever version a person would like to to be. But when explained within the Gospel as it was proclaimed by the Apostles, preserved in time by the Holy Spirit to this day, Calvinism is a very long way from that Gospel. That you disagree is a free choice you have as a human being. That is why you are discussing it today. It is called Calvinism or Reformed Theology, it is called that because it is a version of the real Gospel which does not bear a man's signature. It is the Gospel according to Christ. It is not Paul's Gospel or Peter's or Apollos and surely not Calvin's or Luther's or any other protestant's interpretation of that Gospel.

You have in fact misrepresented Calvinism, both from an historical perspective, and from a doctrinal perspective. You cannot hide that behind the canard that every man is his own authoity, or that factions "prove" that it is error. The Lord knows who are His. My authority is the scriptures, and I do not impose what I want them to say on them, I read them, meditate on them, and ask the Holy Spirit to show me what they mean, so that I can align my thinking and beliefs with scripture. the Calvinists I know all do the same thing. What you describe as Calvinism is a far cry from what it actually is, and what we actually believe. therevore, your speaking against Calvinism is speaking against a straw man that you yourself have erected, and are trying to set on fire to "prove" that you are the only oe speaking the Truth here. As a Calvinist, I reject your caricatures and straw men. Set them on fire if you wish, they do not affect me at all, because they do not repreent what I believe.

Quote frankly, you're wasting your time, and trying to muddy the waters here. Most of what you post amounts to trying to derail the threads into side issues. I respect your right to believe as you wish, but I reject the implicit message that you promote, that your beliefs are the only correct ones here because of your appeal to an authority that the rest of us neither recognize, nor accept, being ex scriptura.

 

[expos4ever]

When you refer to "what God ordained", you are, by your own argument, clearly not holding the position that God has ordained every event. That's fine, as long as we understand each other on this - you have stated that men have "choices". Fair enough, but this means that God cannot have ordained everything. I think we will agree that those things He actually has ordained cannot be overturned by any choice of man. I have some concerns about your statement about being responsible for choices, but I think that would be a bit of a tangent.

Actually, the statements are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to want to believe. There is no necessary conflict between God ordaining everything and men freely choosing.

This is a difficult issue to talk about since we all need to be exceedingly precise in our terminology. I will try to be as precise as possible and explain exactly what I mean. Consider this assertion:

A1: All events that occur are have only one and only one wilfull agent as their fully sufficient cause - God.

This assertion cannot be reconciled with the view that man has free will. By the very nature of the assertion A1, man cannot have free will. There are no issues of perspective here. If A1, as written, is true, man cannot have free will.

Why? Because unless man can have a wilfully determining role in respect to at least partially causing some event, then, by the very definition of free will, man does not have free will.

 

[expos4ever]

If God didn't ordain everything, ultimately, then it is unavoidable that God's Creation is subject to randomness beyond His control or intent. He must continually apply "correction" and "adjustments" to keep it moving in the general direction that He wants, but He can only ordain certain events, and even those are subject to the force of randomness. I have heard it argued that the crucifixion was ordained, but the events leading up to it were not. That makes no logical sense. Stop and think about it.

This argument has some appeal but I do not think it works. Your argument here, I suggest, gets its appeal from the presumption that if "one little thing" is out of God's control, that disturbance is propagated through time and will interfere with God's future plans in a kind of domino effect.

This is not generally true. It is entirely coherent that God has enough control over other variables to attenuate the effect of some "disturbance" introduced by some variable that He does not fully control. So God can "correct" or compenstate so that His plans will still all come to fruition.

A simple example: Let's say that I play tennis against Roger Federer (I am terrible at tennis and he is one of the world's best players). Let's say that Roger would like to win in 3 straight sets in less than an hour. Can he assure this outcome even if he does not determine or pre-destine how I will respond to his shots (which direction I will move, whether I will approach the net or stay on the baseline)?

Obviously, he can. The fact that he does not control all the variables does not impede the certainty of his attaining victory in three sets in less than an hour. Short of breaking a leg or dropping dead, Roger Federer can guarantee the desired outcome. (And, in the case of God, we know that God will not "break a leg" or "drop dead" as it were).

I think that we underestimate the subtlety and sophistication of God. He can assure certain outcomes without controlling all variables.

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnus,

Maybe the problem you have with faith is your definition or how man uses faith.
Men such as Enoch, Noah, Rahab, Abraham and Cornelius all had faith. They had a knowledge of God and then believed in it. We can believe IN something but we also need to believe in the sense of trust or reliance.
All men have the first, but what they do with that knowledge in accepting and to rely upon it makes a believer. Faith of this kind is built upon reason. One must have reason to trust in that which he has knowledge of.
Jesus as He began His ministry clearly assumed that all men could believe. The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the Gospel. Mark 1:15
All through His ministry Jesus asked men to believe. Believe in Him. After Pentacost, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon all flesh. All men are being called by the Holy Spirit. It would be impossible to believe if man did not have the knowledge of God, which Paul says all men have, and that God is requiring of all men to make a choice. Use the faith given to believe. Accept Christ this day, NOW! Paul alludes to it in Rom 12:3.
Christ redeemed mankind, freeing mankind from the bondage to death and sin which had held man captive. All men have the ability and capability to respond to Christ. That ability and responsibility will be charged to them at the judgement. God is not capricious in that He demands of man something that they cannot do and then hold them responsible for it.
This may not fit your reformed theology but it does align with scripture and as scripture has been understood since the beginning with the Apostles.

the fact that all men have a knowledge of God has never been open to any dispute on these forums , the idea that all men have faith , even when scripture says "all men do not have faith " IS open to objection , thus far you have failed to do what I asked , show from scripture that all men have faith ....... and I am still waiting .

as for the rest of your post/s you are wandering about in the mud = implying you are looking for a fight , rabbit trails like objecting to a "capricious god " who isn't existant and no man follows such a sham.....


try , I know it must be difficult for you , but please try and leave all that bagage behind , this is not a thread about Calvinism . nor is it a thread about the "infallibility" of you or your Church , if you wish to debate either of those items and how diversity exists with infallibility , just start YOUR OWN thread.

 

[nobdysfool]

This is a difficult issue to talk about since we all need to be exceedingly precise in our terminology. I will try to be as precise as possible and explain exactly what I mean. Consider this assertion:

A1: All events that occur are have only one and only one wilfull agent as their fully sufficient cause - God.

This assertion cannot be reconciled with the view that man has free will. By the very nature of the assertion A1, man cannot have free will. There are no issues of perspective here. If A1, as written, is true, man cannot have free will.

Why? Because unless man can have a wilfully determining role in respect to at least partially causing some event, then, by the very definition of free will, man does not have free will.

Your analogy fails at the point of its inception, because it does not correctly describe my view, or the Calvinist view. I reject the analogy, because it has no relevance.

The next thing that needs to be done, is to define not only what free will is, in your view, but what it is not. Until that has been defined, the discussion will waste time chasing down rabbit trails and false views of the other's beliefs.

That said, I think there could be a problem in the idea that man must have some truly deterministic stake in his choices, or he has zero free will. That is really overstating the objection. It seems you're trying to force it into an either/or box, where man either has free will (whatever you define that to mean), or he has none at all. Those are not the only two options available.

 

[nobdysfool]

the fact that all men have a knowledge of God has never been open to any dispute on these forums , the idea that all men have faith , even when scripture says "all men do not have faith " IS open to objection , thus far you have failed to do what I asked , show from scripture that all men have faith ....... and I am still waiting .

as for the rest of your post/s you are wandering about in the mud = implying you are looking for a fight , rabbit trails like objecting to a "capricious god " who isn't existant and no man follows such a sham.....


try , I know it must be difficult for you , but please try and leave all that bagage behind , this is not a thread about Calvinism . nor is it a thread about the "infallibility" of you or your Church , if you wish to debate either of those items and how diversity exists with infallibility , just start YOUR OWN thread.

Knowledge does not equal faith. That seems to be the mistake that RG is making here. Good post, Cyg!

 

[expos4ever]

But I do not hold this position because I think the alternative "cannot be". Of course, it is indeed possible that God fully determines what happens. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this view (and there are other problems with it as well).

This is a very liberal mindset, "keeping an open mind", "considering all the possibilities", and ultimately deciding that it doesn't matter exactly what one believes, as long as they believe "something". Allowing that God may indeed "fully determines what happens" sounds good, but underlying this train of thought is the caveat, "but that can't really be the way it is". There has really been no credible alternative to the Calvinist/Reformed view shown here, certainly nothing that would withstand the kind of scrutiny that could and should be brought to bear on it.

I have never written anything remotely close to what you seem to be ascribing to me in this extract from your post. I have no idea who you are addressing here.

I can see that it's quite possible that you aren't aware of where your thinking leads to logically. That's not a slam, that's just making my own observation.

I do not believe I have ever claimed that my position will not lead to logical problems. If you can find any, please point them out. But, despite what you wrote above, I never said anything remotely implying that "that it doesn't matter exactly what one believes, as long as they believe "something"" If you believe that my thinking leads to such a conclusion it is, of course, incumbent on you to make that case. Same with your implication that underlying my thinking is "the caveat, "but that can't really be the way it is". The only things you know about what I think are the things I write. If you can point to something I have written and show that the necessary underlying thinking is a denial of the possibility that the Calvinist position is correct, by all means give us the evidence.

It is equally obvious that you find some of my conclusions and extensions of what I perceive you to be saying to be offensive to you. If I am not understanding you correctly, please show me why, rather than just say "I have no idea who you are addressing here". You know very well I am addressing what I perceive you to be saying.

You made entirely unsubstantiated claims about my "liberal mindset" thinking and what I believe. Please support your claims or withdraw them.

As I have pointed out before, I think you need to start fleshing out your alternative views, rather than just defining them by what you oppose. I mean no disrespect, I am just tired of having to deal with straw men and misunderstood views, and want to see some real substance from you as to what you actually do believe.

There is so much to legitimately engage in what you post that, indeed, I have been a little light on what position I hold - at least not at the point in time at which you made this observation.

On the matter of sovereignty, my position is summarized by the Roger Federer example I have given in a recent post and the associated statements.

 

[expos4ever]

This is a difficult issue to talk about since we all need to be exceedingly precise in our terminology. I will try to be as precise as possible and explain exactly what I mean. Consider this assertion:

A1: All events that occur are have only one and only one wilfull agent as their fully sufficient cause - God.

This assertion cannot be reconciled with the view that man has free will. By the very nature of the assertion A1, man cannot have free will. There are no issues of perspective here. If A1, as written, is true, man cannot have free will.

Why? Because unless man can have a wilfully determining role in respect to at least partially causing some event, then, by the very definition of free will, man does not have free will.

Your analogy fails at the point of its inception, because it does not correctly describe my view, or the Calvinist view. I reject the analogy, because it has no relevance.

I never stated that the position that I am critiquing is a position you hold.

I presented a view and critiqued it. This is part of an effort to converge on an understanding that is workable. I was very intentional in not ascribing this view to you or any other specific poster.

The next thing that needs to be done, is to define not only what free will is, in your view, but what it is not. Until that has been defined, the discussion will waste time chasing down rabbit trails and false views of the other's beliefs.

I agree that I should provide a definition of free will.

It is obviously possible for agents in this universe to act freely, unless you believe that God does not act freely (perhaps you do, I will be interested to read what you say about this).

Here is my definition:

"A decision X on the part of entity A can be said to at least partly arise by A's free will if any of the causal mechanisms that lead to X are not themselves exhaustively (fully) caused by forces outside A"

I know this may seem complex, but I think it says exactly what I beleive to be the case.

There is a tricky aspect of this: Let's say that the entity in question is a person. Let's say they are born in a state where they are "programmed" to respond to seeing a juicy steak by salivating. While the faculty that "causes" the salivating is "inside the person" - part of their constitution - that faculty is the way it is because of the "programmer" that programmed them to salivate. And that programmer is a force "outside" the person. So when such a person salivates, it is not a free will act by my definition.

Free will is a tricky concept. But unless one believes that God "has no control over what He does", one almost certainly must accept the reality of free will as a concept, even if you ascribe it only to God.

I suspect that some who reject "freewill" leverage the appeal of "everything must be caused by something else" notion, and reason that there can be nothing that a person can ultimately "freely" choose to do (since that thing would be caused by something else). Well that indeed has appeal. But I think that if one believes in a God, whose very actions are not fully caused by something else, then one has to bite the bullet and accept the notion of human free will as a possibility.

 

[nobdysfool]

I never stated that the position that I am critiquing is a position you hold.

I presented a view and critiqued it. This is part of an effort to converge on an understanding that is workable. I was very intentional in not ascribing this view to you or any other specific poster.

You are ignoring the underlying theme underneath all of your arguments and statement to date, which is in opposition to what you perceive Calvinists to believe. At least that's what I have seen when I distill your statements down. The positions you seem to be holding are antithetic to the Calvinist position, so I perceive them as -de facto- anti-Calvinist. If that is not the case, then I apologize for not correctly perceiving what you're saying.

And, you have not started another thread to take this line of discussion to, as I asked you to, to keep from derailing this thread into something which has nothing to do with the OP.

I agree that I should provide a definition of free will.

It is obviously possible for agents in this universe to act freely, unless you believe that God does not act freely (perhaps you do, I will be interested to read what you say about this).

In my view, God is the ONLY Being with a truly unlimited, autonomous free will. The idea of a god who cannot act freely is, in my mind, ludicrous, as it would rob God of that which He is. God is the ONLY self-existent, self-determining Being that exists. The reasons for His actions, and the cause of His actions reside totally within Himself. No other being can make that claim. It is summed up in His very Name: "I am that I am" - YHWH That is one of many names He has identified Himself as, each one revealing apsects of His Being and Character.

Here is my definition:

"A decision X on the part of entity A can be said to at least partly arise by A's free will if any of the causal mechanisms that lead to X are not themselves exhaustively (fully) caused by forces outside A"

I know this may seem complex, but I think it says exactly what I beleive to be the case.

As I percive it, you're basically stating that entity A has "autonomous free will". The only Being that is true of is God. So we must draw a distinction between God and His Creation.

So what you need to do is state your view as it applies to mankind, apart from God, because what is true of God is not necessarily true of man. There is a difference, not just of degree, but of kind as well.

There is a tricky aspect of this: Let's say that the entity in question is a person. Let's say they are born in a state where they are "programmed" to respond to seeing a juicy steak by salivating. While the faculty that "causes" the salivating is "inside the person" - part of their constitution - that faculty is the way it is because of the "programmer" that programmed them to salivate. And that programmer is a force "outside" the person. So when such a person salivates, it is not a free will act by my definition.

But it is equally possible for that reaction to come about by experience, such that there is no "outside cause" for the salivation, but a response conditioned by and learned by actual experience of eating the steak. I think that your analogy breaks down at that point.

Free will is a tricky concept. But unless one believes that God "has no control over what He does", one almost certainly must accept the reality of free will as a concept, even if you ascribe it only to God.

Very few, if any here would argue against the idea of free will entirely. If anything, there are some here who would argue for a level of free will in mankind that simply does not exist, and is a force unto itself. I personally reject both extremes.

I suspect that some who reject "freewill" leverage the appeal of "everything must be caused by something else" notion, and reason that there can be nothing that a person can ultimately "freely" choose to do (since that thing would be caused by something else). Well that indeed has appeal. But I think that if one believes in a God, whose very actions are not fully caused by something else, then one has to bite the bullet and accept the notion of human free will as a possibility.

Perhaps a bit overly simplistic. The idea that God's choices arise from something outside of Himself is to my mind, rather belittling of God. It postulates something or somone who is at least equal to, if not greater than, God. Such cannot be the case, or God is no longer God.