S
SeventhValley
Guest
How dose free will work in the Reformed mindset? Also the Puritans believed in preperationism, preparing people before God called them as elect. Is that a dead notion today?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,499
- 3,778
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Seems like theological navel gazing if you ask me and I do not believe it was something the Puritans would have taught. The controversy seems to have taken place around the time of the Enlightenment and is a result of humanism. Both the Marrow Men and Gnostic Hyper Calvinism seem to be the blame for the whole mess because they rationalize Arminianism and Calvinism (Marrow Men) or enthrone human reason (Gnostic/Hyper Calvinist). To demand everyone believe savingly, to my knowledge, was not a proper construct of the free proclamation of the Gospel. To proclaim that you must believe in Jesus Christ to be saved is one thing but it is entirely another to suggest you have the ability to believe savingly for it places the ability to produce saving faith within the individual.
Have a look at John 15:
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."
The one who bears fruit is the one in union with the true vine Jesus Christ. Faith is not something that "grabs hold of the Gospel offer" but evidence of our being in grafted into the true vine and therefore united with Christ Jesus.
As for the idea of freewill...there is libertarian freewill which essentially teaches that mankind is completely free from all outside or inside influences and acts freely, all the time. This is probably the most popular view.
The Bible teaches that we act freely according to our nature. Our nature is fallen, dead in sin and therefore we freely sin in thought, word and deed. We are sinners by nature and sinners by choice.
The Gospel/Good News is, Jesus came to save His people from their sin and the consequences for sin.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
Upvote
0
S
SeventhValley
Guest
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparationism
Says it was a popular puritan idea.
Also once on the vine can you be cut off?
Also the Bible says to work out our own salvation(Phillipians 2:12) Why would it tell us to do something we cannot do?
Says it was a popular puritan idea.
Also once on the vine can you be cut off?
Also the Bible says to work out our own salvation(Phillipians 2:12) Why would it tell us to do something we cannot do?
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,499
- 3,778
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
English and Continental Puritans seemed less fond of the idea, it doesn't show up in the confessions of the Reformed or Particular Baptist churches and runs contrary to the idea of a sovereign God. The mirco-Reformed churches of New England seemed to be promoters of it so it would be second generation Puritans.
The warnings are real but as the passage I quoted above clearly states, "without me ye can do nothing." see Chapter 17 of the 1689
Gospel Standard Articles explains:
We believe that all those who were chosen by the Father and redeemed by the Son, and no others, shall, at the appointed time, certainly be convinced in their hearts of sin, by the Spirit (John 16:8, 1 Cor. 2:14, Eph. 2:1), be brought in guilty before God, and made the recipients of eternal life, coming to Christ for salvation, and believing on Him as the Anointed of the Father, and the only Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 8:6, Heb. 9:15, Heb 12:24); but that none can spiritually come to Christ unless drawn by the Father (John 6:44, John 6:65); and that all the elect shall be thus drawn to Christ, and shall finally persevere; so that not one of the elect shall perish, but all arrive safely in glory. (Job 17:9, Matt. 24:34, John 4:14 ; John 5:24, John 6:37, John 6:44-47, John 10:28, John 17:6, John 17:12, John 17:24, Acts 2:47, Rom. 8:29-39, Phil. 1:6, 1 Pet. 1:3-5.)
For it is God which worketh in you BOTH to will AND to do of his good pleasure. (Php 2:13)
I hope the context of Phil. 2.12 helps to make more sense of this difficult passage. We are to strive with the Spirit as the Spirit works in us both to will and to do His good pleasure.
The Gospel Standard Articles once again:
We believe that the grace of God produces a real change in a man and teaches him to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live godly (Tit. 2:11-12), and that there is a growth in grace (2 Pet. 3:18, Phil. 3:8-10, Mark 4:26-29, 1 John 2:12-13), which consists principally in a growing experimental knowledge of a man's sinful self (1 Kings 8:38, Ezra. 9:6, Job 40:4-6, Ps. 73:22, Dan. x. 8), the vanity of the creature, the glory of God, the spirituality of His law, and the want and worth of Jesus Christ. This is accompanied by a deepening distrust of everything but the grace and love of God in Christ for salvation, and is not a growth in conscious goodness, but in felt necessity and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (John 3:30, 1 Cor. 2:2, Tit. 3:3-8, Eph. 3:8, 1 Tim. 1:15.)
Yours in the Lord.
Upvote
0
cubanito
Well-Known Member
- Nov 16, 2005
- 2,680
- 222
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
There are 2 distinct camps in Reformed thought re man's free will, and two men could be used as the categories: Cornelius van Til and Gordon Clark. If pushed for a succinct summary, van Til denies that we can ever fully understand how man's free will logically fits in withGod's Sovereignty.Clark elevates logic to a point where he makes no distinction between God and logic, thus God is UNABLE to operate beyond the bounds of formal logic as He is unable to lie.
My own view I've recently discovered are quite similar to van Til (in fact, I deny logic even applies to the creation, as the mathematics of the mid-20th century confirmed).
I believe post-modernism has an undue bad reputation. Post modernism was born of the mathematics of Turing, Kurt Godel and others and is NOT the denial that there is absolute Truth (as often portrayed). Rather, post modernism is the affirmation that Absolute Truth can never be attained by human effort. In post modernism, any systematic system of thought MUST allow for something greater than itself. In fact, Kurt Godel claimed that he had achieved a mathematical PROOF of the existence of God.
Post modernism is a choice: either admit that ALL Truth must be initiated as Revealed Truth shades of James "All Good things come from the Father above" OR consign yourself to never being sure of anything at all.
I find proponents of logic as binding of God quasi-idolatrous.
God is God, His ways and thoughts are forever higher than ours. He says that we are elected and He also says we choose. How both things are True is as beyond my capacity to comprehend as quantum mechanics.
To me, there is no fundamental argument with an Arminian. I prefer to emphasize the Sovereignty of God, but I will not deny the free will of man. It is logic, the laws that govern my human mind's capacity to think, that I deny to be my God. I do so not only because of my understanding of the Bible (as if that were not enough) but of my understanding of mathematics.
If I am being unfair to Dr Clark, may another correct me.
JR
My own view I've recently discovered are quite similar to van Til (in fact, I deny logic even applies to the creation, as the mathematics of the mid-20th century confirmed).
I believe post-modernism has an undue bad reputation. Post modernism was born of the mathematics of Turing, Kurt Godel and others and is NOT the denial that there is absolute Truth (as often portrayed). Rather, post modernism is the affirmation that Absolute Truth can never be attained by human effort. In post modernism, any systematic system of thought MUST allow for something greater than itself. In fact, Kurt Godel claimed that he had achieved a mathematical PROOF of the existence of God.
Post modernism is a choice: either admit that ALL Truth must be initiated as Revealed Truth shades of James "All Good things come from the Father above" OR consign yourself to never being sure of anything at all.
I find proponents of logic as binding of God quasi-idolatrous.
God is God, His ways and thoughts are forever higher than ours. He says that we are elected and He also says we choose. How both things are True is as beyond my capacity to comprehend as quantum mechanics.
To me, there is no fundamental argument with an Arminian. I prefer to emphasize the Sovereignty of God, but I will not deny the free will of man. It is logic, the laws that govern my human mind's capacity to think, that I deny to be my God. I do so not only because of my understanding of the Bible (as if that were not enough) but of my understanding of mathematics.
If I am being unfair to Dr Clark, may another correct me.
JR
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,499
- 3,778
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
JR, the op isn't about the differences between Clark and VanTil. To break the discussion down along two great Reformed thinkers misses hundreds of years worth of definitions. I don't believe it is helpful to pursue the Clark / VanTil controversy at this point in the discussion.
_______________________
The Compatibilist view - This view affirms that man freely chooses what God has determined that he will chose. In this way, the idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible for his actions are compatible ideas. Free will is affected by human nature and man cannot choose contrary to his nature and desires. This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices. But due to the effects of the fall, as contained in the doctrine of total depravity, man's nature is corrupted such that he cannot choose contrary to his fallen nature -- He cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith apart from divine intervention.
The Libertarian view - According to libertarianism, the idea that God causes men to act in a certain way, but that man has free will in acting that way is logically false. Free means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused. God limits the actions of men, but not their mind or will. Man has the ability to turn to God in Christ and sincerely ask for help, selfishly perhaps, apart from specific (special) divine enablement. According to Arminianism, God, in his freedom, not only sets a condition on salvation and wills only to save those who would ask Him to rescue them. God, then, predestines those who He "foreknew" to salvation. Or, according to Open Theism, God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what the choice might be.
Man has a will and that will has a certain freedom. Our LORD clearly teaches that man has a power of choice. It is important to begin here to disarm opponents of all the foolish accusations that have been brought against the Biblical doctrine of man's will. Every man has the ability to choose his own words, to decide what his actions will be. We have a faculty of self-determination in the sense that we select our own thoughts, words, and deeds. Man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires.
No one ties fruit on a tree's branches, not even GOD. The tree bears its own fruit. Evil men sin voluntarily; they take evil treasures out of their chests, that is, evil words and deeds. Righteous men are holy by choice; they select good treasures, that is, good words and works. The person who is speaking and acting is completely responsible for his moral behaviour. This power of the will is a vital part of human personality. It always exists in you and me and in all to whom we witness or preach. Source: Man's Will - Free Yet Bound by Walter J. Chantry
Robert Shaw, "According to Arminians three things belong to the freedom of the will: -
1. That the will has a self-determining power, or a certain sovereignty over itself, and its own acts, whereby it determines its own volitions.
2. A state of indifference, or that equilibrium, whereby the will is without all antecedent bias, and left entirely free from any prepossessing inclination to one side or the other.
3. That the volitions, or acts of the will, are contingent, not only as opposed to all constraint, but to all necessity, or any fixed and certain connection with some previous ground or reason of their existence.
Calvinists, on the other hand, contend that a power in the will to determine its own determinations, is either unmeaning, or supposes, contrary to the first principles of philosophy, something to arise without a cause; that the idea of the soul exerting an act of choice or preference, while, at the same time, the will is in a perfect equilibrium, or state of indifference, is full of absurdity and self-contradiction; and that, as nothing can ever come to pass without a cause, the acts of the will are never contingent, or without necessity - understanding by necessity, a necessity of consequence, or an infallible connection with something foregoing.
According to Calvinists, the liberty of a moral agent consists in the power of acting according to a choice; and those actions are free which are performed without any external compulsion or restraint, in consequence of the determinations of his own mind. "The necessity of man's willing and acting in conformity to his apprehensions and disposition, is, in their opinion, fully consistent with all the liberty which can belong to a rational nature. The infinite Being necessarily wills and acts according to the absolute perfection of his nature, yet with the highest liberty. Angels necessarily will and act according to the perfection of their natures, yet with full liberty; for this sort of necessity is so far from interfering with liberty of will, that the perfection of the will's liberty lies in such a necessity. The very essence of its liberty lies in acting consciously, choosing or refusing without any external compulsion or constraint, but according to inward principles of rational apprehension and natural disposition." An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith
Sam Waldron, "Man has natural liberty. It is the ability to act on choice. It is the freedom to choose as one desires, no matter what the external circumstances or environmental factors may surround a person at the time (Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19). The human will is not "forced", nor is it determined by 'any necessity of nature to do good or evil'. When, therefore, in another sense Bible Calvinism rejects free will, it is not adopting behaviouralism or some other form of physical or chemical determinism. The human will is not subject to any physical necessity. Men are free. Their choices are not determined by factors external to their free, personal identities and moral natures. There could not be the human responsibility and accountability which the Bible clearly teaches, unless this were the case (Prov. 1:24-33; John 3:18-19)."
Further down the page, "Our wills are controlled by our ethical disposition and moral nature. Free will is not the ability to will the opposite, as if men can unpredictably do good or evil (Matt. 7:17-20; 12:33-35). Paragraph 3 (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith) affirms that the free wills of unconverted men are unable to will to do 'any spiritual good'. Paragraph 5 asserts that free wills of glorified men, while perfectly and gloriously free, and also immutably fixed on doing good in the state of glory (Eph. 4:13; Heb. 12:23)
Free will is, therefore, not a kind of immutable faculty for making random decisions. Being tried to human nature, it exists in different states because human nature exists in different states. The very structure of the Confession illustrates this truth. The first paragraph defines free will. Paragraph 2-5 deal with the different states in which it exists." A Modern Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
_______________________
The Compatibilist view - This view affirms that man freely chooses what God has determined that he will chose. In this way, the idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible for his actions are compatible ideas. Free will is affected by human nature and man cannot choose contrary to his nature and desires. This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices. But due to the effects of the fall, as contained in the doctrine of total depravity, man's nature is corrupted such that he cannot choose contrary to his fallen nature -- He cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith apart from divine intervention.
The Libertarian view - According to libertarianism, the idea that God causes men to act in a certain way, but that man has free will in acting that way is logically false. Free means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused. God limits the actions of men, but not their mind or will. Man has the ability to turn to God in Christ and sincerely ask for help, selfishly perhaps, apart from specific (special) divine enablement. According to Arminianism, God, in his freedom, not only sets a condition on salvation and wills only to save those who would ask Him to rescue them. God, then, predestines those who He "foreknew" to salvation. Or, according to Open Theism, God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what the choice might be.
Man has a will and that will has a certain freedom. Our LORD clearly teaches that man has a power of choice. It is important to begin here to disarm opponents of all the foolish accusations that have been brought against the Biblical doctrine of man's will. Every man has the ability to choose his own words, to decide what his actions will be. We have a faculty of self-determination in the sense that we select our own thoughts, words, and deeds. Man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires.
No one ties fruit on a tree's branches, not even GOD. The tree bears its own fruit. Evil men sin voluntarily; they take evil treasures out of their chests, that is, evil words and deeds. Righteous men are holy by choice; they select good treasures, that is, good words and works. The person who is speaking and acting is completely responsible for his moral behaviour. This power of the will is a vital part of human personality. It always exists in you and me and in all to whom we witness or preach. Source: Man's Will - Free Yet Bound by Walter J. Chantry
Robert Shaw, "According to Arminians three things belong to the freedom of the will: -
1. That the will has a self-determining power, or a certain sovereignty over itself, and its own acts, whereby it determines its own volitions.
2. A state of indifference, or that equilibrium, whereby the will is without all antecedent bias, and left entirely free from any prepossessing inclination to one side or the other.
3. That the volitions, or acts of the will, are contingent, not only as opposed to all constraint, but to all necessity, or any fixed and certain connection with some previous ground or reason of their existence.
Calvinists, on the other hand, contend that a power in the will to determine its own determinations, is either unmeaning, or supposes, contrary to the first principles of philosophy, something to arise without a cause; that the idea of the soul exerting an act of choice or preference, while, at the same time, the will is in a perfect equilibrium, or state of indifference, is full of absurdity and self-contradiction; and that, as nothing can ever come to pass without a cause, the acts of the will are never contingent, or without necessity - understanding by necessity, a necessity of consequence, or an infallible connection with something foregoing.
According to Calvinists, the liberty of a moral agent consists in the power of acting according to a choice; and those actions are free which are performed without any external compulsion or restraint, in consequence of the determinations of his own mind. "The necessity of man's willing and acting in conformity to his apprehensions and disposition, is, in their opinion, fully consistent with all the liberty which can belong to a rational nature. The infinite Being necessarily wills and acts according to the absolute perfection of his nature, yet with the highest liberty. Angels necessarily will and act according to the perfection of their natures, yet with full liberty; for this sort of necessity is so far from interfering with liberty of will, that the perfection of the will's liberty lies in such a necessity. The very essence of its liberty lies in acting consciously, choosing or refusing without any external compulsion or constraint, but according to inward principles of rational apprehension and natural disposition." An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith
Sam Waldron, "Man has natural liberty. It is the ability to act on choice. It is the freedom to choose as one desires, no matter what the external circumstances or environmental factors may surround a person at the time (Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19). The human will is not "forced", nor is it determined by 'any necessity of nature to do good or evil'. When, therefore, in another sense Bible Calvinism rejects free will, it is not adopting behaviouralism or some other form of physical or chemical determinism. The human will is not subject to any physical necessity. Men are free. Their choices are not determined by factors external to their free, personal identities and moral natures. There could not be the human responsibility and accountability which the Bible clearly teaches, unless this were the case (Prov. 1:24-33; John 3:18-19)."
Further down the page, "Our wills are controlled by our ethical disposition and moral nature. Free will is not the ability to will the opposite, as if men can unpredictably do good or evil (Matt. 7:17-20; 12:33-35). Paragraph 3 (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith) affirms that the free wills of unconverted men are unable to will to do 'any spiritual good'. Paragraph 5 asserts that free wills of glorified men, while perfectly and gloriously free, and also immutably fixed on doing good in the state of glory (Eph. 4:13; Heb. 12:23)
Free will is, therefore, not a kind of immutable faculty for making random decisions. Being tried to human nature, it exists in different states because human nature exists in different states. The very structure of the Confession illustrates this truth. The first paragraph defines free will. Paragraph 2-5 deal with the different states in which it exists." A Modern Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
Upvote
0
S
SeventhValley
Guest
God's Olive Tree | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org
This from a refomed perspective says the elect can be cut off. While JM's post says the elect cannot which is more intellectually consistent.
This from a refomed perspective says the elect can be cut off. While JM's post says the elect cannot which is more intellectually consistent.
Upvote
0
twin1954
Baptist by the Bible
You are joking right?
It in no way infers that the elect can be cut off. What it says is that the Gentiles can be cut off. Once more I ask that you actually give an answer to JM's post, if you can. If you can't then refrain from trying to stir up a stink.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
S
SeventhValley
Guest
How is rejection of gentiles possible? Why Would God warn us about something he controls?
Upvote
0
S
SeventhValley
Guest
I know some reformed say man's responsibility is a holy mystery. Would this be the most common view?
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,499
- 3,778
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
7th,
I read your post in the Eastern Orthodox denomination forum about the millennium. If you like, start a thread here in the Reformed section and we can discuss it.
jm
I read your post in the Eastern Orthodox denomination forum about the millennium. If you like, start a thread here in the Reformed section and we can discuss it.
jm
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,499
- 3,778
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
No.
Piper and Grudem are Calvinists of a different kind. They are charismatics. Particular Baptists and Reformed Christians are not. Try reading Johns Calvin and Gill. Bavinck is excellent but his dogmatics are a 4 volume set.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
