Free will

[Kersh]

One of the issues that seems to divide Baptists is the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. And, at the heart of that debate is our understanding of free will. In looking at each side's understanding of free will, I can't help but think that perhaps the difference between us is somewhat overblown.

To be clear, when I say this, I am specifically excluding "hyper-Calvinism" and open theism, which are generally considered to be outside of Baptist orthodoxy.

In full disclosure, I identify with Arminian soteriology of theology more than I do with Calvinism. But, the more I learn about each, the more I believe that there is more to unite us in proclaiming the Gospel than there is to divide us in finer points of our theology.

My understanding from my Calvinist brothers and sisters is that they generally understand free will to be compatibilist: God has decreed our every action to be in full comformity with our greatest deaire. So, we cannot act outside of God's decree because to do so would be to act outside of our own desire. (If any Calvinists on here believe that explanation to be incorrect, please feel free to correct me).

Armininans on the other hand, see free will as primarily libertarian, meaning that we are free to choose between limited options, and even to act against our greatest desire. However, God in His foreknowledge knows what choices we are going to make.

While there are certainly differences in these two understandings, I am convinced that even on this contentious question, we are closer than our charicatures of each other would lead us to believe. Both positions assume that God is never surprised by anything that we do and knows, without a doubt, who will be saved. Both positions see God acting in His sovereignty while allow us to choose whatever will. The main distinction here is in the means that God uses to strike this balance. And, each position presumes that God can effectively keep His promisies despite whatever we may do to corrupt them. And, ultimately this is understanding is central to the Gospel.

 

[twin1954]

One of the issues that seems to divide Baptists is the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. And, at the heart of that debate is our understanding of free will. In looking at each side's understanding of free will, I can't help but think that perhaps the difference between us is somewhat overblown.

To be clear, when I say this, I am specifically excluding "hyper-Calvinism" and open theism, which are generally considered to be outside of Baptist orthodoxy.

In full disclosure, I identify with Arminian soteriology of theology more than I do with Calvinism. But, the more I learn about each, the more I believe that there is more to unite us in proclaiming the Gospel than there is to divide us in finer points of our theology.

My understanding from my Calvinist brothers and sisters is that they generally understand free will to be compatibilist: God has decreed our every action to be in full comformity with our greatest deaire. So, we cannot act outside of God's decree because to do so would be to act outside of our own desire. (If any Calvinists on here believe that explanation to be incorrect, please feel free to correct me).

Armininans on the other hand, see free will as primarily libertarian, meaning that we are free to choose between limited options, and even to act against our greatest desire. However, God in His foreknowledge knows what choices we are going to make.

While there are certainly differences in these two understandings, I am convinced that even on this contentious question, we are closer than our charicatures of each other would lead us to believe. Both positions assume that God is never surprised by anything that we do and knows, without a doubt, who will be saved. Both positions see God acting in His sovereignty while allow us to choose whatever will. The main distinction here is in the means that God uses to strike this balance. And, each position presumes that God can effectively keep His promisies despite whatever we may do to corrupt them. And, ultimately this is understanding is central to the Gospel.

The matter of free will hinges on the doctrine of total depravity.

Though many Arminians claim to believe in total depravity they don't actually. In order to resolve their problem they devised the idea of prevenient grace. The problem with that is it can be found nowhere in Scripture.

I would contend that our differences lie in the atonement of Christ. Did He actually save some people or only make it possible if they will believe. As long as that difference exists we cannot and do not preach the same Gospel.

 

[Kersh]

The matter of free will hinges on the doctrine of total depravity.

Though many Arminians claim to believe in total depravity they don't actually. In order to resolve their problem they devised the idea of prevenient grace. The problem with that is it can be found nowhere in Scripture.

I would contend that our differences lie in the atonement of Christ. Did He actually save some people or only make it possible if they will believe. As long as that difference exists we cannot and do not preach the same Gospel.

Total depravity is absolutely essential to Arminian theology. I would contend that an "Arminian" who denies total depravity is no more Arminian than he is Calvinist. Such a person is more likely a Pelagian. Prevenient grace is the means by which, according to Arminianism, totally depraved man can nonetheless accept the Gospel. It is no more or less inconisitent with total depravity than the notion of irresistible grace. Both present a plausible explanation as to the apparent contrdiction between the reality that sinners get saved and the doctrine of total depravity as taught in Scripture. Each approach has it's share of biblical passages that support it and that refute it. But, at the end of the day, if depraved sinners are saved by the blood of Christ, and if we are commanded to be the vessels by which this good news is shared, I don't see the value is wasting much time arguing about whether grace is extended to all, but resisted by some or whether it is irresistibly extended to some, and not at all to others. Perhaps, we'll all learn someday that neither of us had it completely right, but since great minds have yet to come up with another option that is faithful to Scripture, I'll patiently wait for that day.

Certainly this presents one of the implications of how the subtle nuances that distinguish compatibilism from libertatarianism. After all, the agree that some are saved and some are not (unless one buys into universalism or some other heresy). We also agree that salvation is only possible through the grace of God through faith in Christ. And, we agree that we are naturally depraved, but for the grace of God. So, then we are left with the question, why do some depraved sinners become saved and others do not. Our different views on free will, although somewhat subtle, lead us to radically different answers to this question. But, the gospel that is preached and the means of preaching it are relatively similar despite the differences in how we answer the "why".

 

[TCassidy]

The will of man is never free.

The will of the lost man is in bondage to the law of sin and death.

The will of the saved man is bound to the law of new life in Christ.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

 

[98cwitr]

Two things must be incorrect or misunderstood in order for Aremian understanding of free will to exist:

Either God is not Omniscient, or God is not the Creator (or, is presently involved in the creation of humans). If either of those are not true, there is room for libertarian free will to exist.

As someone who's been called calvinist before, I ascribe that free will is nothing more than an illusion due to human cognition. We cannot do anything outside that which it is in our nature to do. Our nature is given to us by God. We perceive to act freely within that nature, but it is God that guides our every move (Proverbs 16:9, 20:24).

 

[twin1954]

Total depravity is absolutely essential to Arminian theology. I would contend that an "Arminian" who denies total depravity is no more Arminian than he is Calvinist. Such a person is more likely a Pelagian. Prevenient grace is the means by which, according to Arminianism, totally depraved man can nonetheless accept the Gospel. It is no more or less inconisitent with total depravity than the notion of irresistible grace. Both present a plausible explanation as to the apparent contrdiction between the reality that sinners get saved and the doctrine of total depravity as taught in Scripture. Each approach has it's share of biblical passages that support it and that refute it. But, at the end of the day, if depraved sinners are saved by the blood of Christ, and if we are commanded to be the vessels by which this good news is shared, I don't see the value is wasting much time arguing about whether grace is extended to all, but resisted by some or whether it is irresistibly extended to some, and not at all to others. Perhaps, we'll all learn someday that neither of us had it completely right, but since great minds have yet to come up with another option that is faithful to Scripture, I'll patiently wait for that day.

Certainly this presents one of the implications of how the subtle nuances that distinguish compatibilism from libertatarianism. After all, the agree that some are saved and some are not (unless one buys into universalism or some other heresy). We also agree that salvation is only possible through the grace of God through faith in Christ. And, we agree that we are naturally depraved, but for the grace of God. So, then we are left with the question, why do some depraved sinners become saved and others do not. Our different views on free will, although somewhat subtle, lead us to radically different answers to this question. But, the gospel that is preached and the means of preaching it are relatively similar despite the differences in how we answer the "why".

How is Jesus Christ can save if you let Him and Jesus Christ has actually saved some sinners the same? We don't actually preach the same Christ. The Arminian preaches a Christ who wants to save, tries to save and hopes to save while He is unable to save in reality. He is an utter failure. His atonement means nothing, His love is useless and powerless and even though He supposedly looks down through time to see who will receive Him most go to Hell anyway. What an object of pity He is. How can He ever be satisfied if those He loves go to Hell anyway?

 

[Kersh]

How is Jesus Christ can save if you let Him and Jesus Christ has actually saved some sinners the same? We don't actually preach the same Christ. The Arminian preaches a Christ who wants to save, tries to save and hopes to save while He is unable to save in reality. He is an utter failure. His atonement means nothing, His love is useless and powerless and even though He supposedly looks down through time to see who will receive Him most go to Hell anyway. What an object of pity He is. How can He ever be satisfied if those He loves go to Hell anyway?

Respectfully, Calvinism and Arminianism, both have to address the same issue: Scripture clearly teaches that God loves the whole world and desires all to be saved, yet some people will never be saved. Both Calvinism and Arminianism rely on some concept of free will to explain this disparity. The question, if we are to be faithful to Scripture is not whether God has given us free will or whether some people who God would desire to be saved will not be. Rather, the question is what is the extent of free will and how is free will reconciled with the sovereignty of God. And, my contention is that the answers proposed by most Calvinists and by true Arminians are not as different as many on each side would like to believe.

Now, that is not to say that there are not people who identify as Calvinist, who have taken the rejection of libertarian free will to such an extreme as to deny any power of choice on the part of humanity, which inevitably makes evangelism an exercise in futility. But, my experience is that this view is a fringe view within Calvinism. Likewise, there are people who identify as Arminian who believe that one can choose Christ on their own free will, but these are not truly Arminian, but Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. There are those also who believe that God is learning about what will happen as history unfolds, but these too are not Arminian, but are open theists. I would contend that hyper-Calvinism, Pelagianism, and open theism are all so clearly contradicted by Scripture as to not warrant much discussion in this thread.

My principal contention here is that compatibilism and libertarianism, while having very real differences in their implications, are not so distinct as to warrant the divide that they often cause among Baptists and other Christians. Rather, so much of what Calvinists call libertarianism is a caricature that is actually more akin to open theism, and much of what Arminians identify as Calvinism is a caricature that is more rightly dismissed as "hyper-Calvinism."

 

[Kersh]

Two things must be incorrect or misunderstood in order for Aremian understanding of free will to exist:

Either God is not Omniscient, or God is not the Creator (or, is presently involved in the creation of humans). If either of those are not true, there is room for libertarian free will to exist.

As someone who's been called calvinist before, I ascribe that free will is nothing more than an illusion due to human cognition. We cannot do anything outside that which it is in our nature to do. Our nature is given to us by God. We perceive to act freely within that nature, but it is God that guides our every move (Proverbs 16:9, 20:24).

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, there is not explanation for damnation apart from some notion of free will. Likewise, if God desires all to be saved, as is stated in 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, then either all must be saved, God is not omnipotent, or God has allowed some to choose damnation.

Honest Calvinists and Arminians both have to struggle with this, and each has presented its notion of free will in explanation of this dilemma. And while these competing explanations are meaningfully distinct, I would contend that each can be supported by substantial portions of Scripture and each can be refuted by substantial portions of Scripture, while neither is completely inconsistent with the whole of biblical teaching. As I said in the opening post, at the resurrection, I suppose we will find out that both sides were wrong to some extent.

 

[twin1954]

Respectfully, Calvinism and Arminianism, both have to address the same issue: Scripture clearly teaches that God loves the whole world and desires all to be saved, yet some people will never be saved. Both Calvinism and Arminianism rely on some concept of free will to explain this disparity. The question, if we are to be faithful to Scripture is not whether God has given us free will or whether some people who God would desire to be saved will not be. Rather, the question is what is the extent of free will and how is free will reconciled with the sovereignty of God. And, my contention is that the answers proposed by most Calvinists and by true Arminians are not as different as many on each side would like to believe.

Now, that is not to say that there are not people who identify as Calvinist, who have taken the rejection of libertarian free will to such an extreme as to deny any power of choice on the part of humanity, which inevitably makes evangelism an exercise in futility. But, my experience is that this view is a fringe view within Calvinism. Likewise, there are people who identify as Arminian who believe that one can choose Christ on their own free will, but these are not truly Arminian, but Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. There are those also who believe that God is learning about what will happen as history unfolds, but these too are not Arminian, but are open theists. I would contend that hyper-Calvinism, Pelagianism, and open theism are all so clearly contradicted by Scripture as to not warrant much discussion in this thread.

My principal contention here is that compatibilism and libertarianism, while having very real differences in their implications, are not so distinct as to warrant the divide that they often cause among Baptists and other Christians. Rather, so much of what Calvinists call libertarianism is a caricature that is actually more akin to open theism, and much of what Arminians identify as Calvinism is a caricature that is more rightly dismissed as "hyper-Calvinism."

you re not actually responding to my posts. You are just repeating the same thing with different words.

I get what your contention is but simply disagree as I have pointed out. You start with a presupposition taken from a few verses of the NT and reason in a circle. Those verses taken in their context teach the opposite of your supposition.

Calvinists, of course, don't teach that we are robots but that our choices are ordained by God who controls all the circumstances and influences that lead to those choices.

The Aminian view actually, when thought about carefully, denies total depravity. Which, of course, makes the theology semi-pelagion at best.

Our experience of life certainly shows us that we make choices. That isn't denied. What Calvinists deny is that our choices are not free of the influence of our sin nature. We contend that we will always choose sin over God unless the Spirit, by the preaching of the Gospel, gives us life and faith in Christ, in that order. Only when we have been made willing in the day of His power can we even know of our need of Christ. He gives us a new nature that desires God and righteousness. We then choose Christ because we find no other choice is life.

I use this illustration:
Life and faith in Christ is like water being poured into a glass, the glass simply receives the water passively. It takes no part in it except to be filled. That is what the Spirit does when He gives us life in the new birth. Then once the glass has been filled we take the water and drink it as a thirsty man. That is our active part in it. But there can be no active part until the passive part has occurred.

 

[twin1954]

Here are some of the major differences I see between Calvinists and Arminians:
The concept of foreknowledge;
Arminians believe that Gods sees through time who will and will not accept Him by their free will; Calvinists understand the word in its biblical context and usage. Foreknowledge is never used in reference to things or acts but always in reference to people. He foreknows people not acts or things that happen. That puts a whole different context on the word. As used in the Scriptures when applied to God it always means an intimate union such as marriage.

The concept of the will;
Arminians hold that man has a free will, though they disagree on how free that will is. Calvinists believe that man has a will but it isn't free to make choices outside of the slavery to sin which is our nature. We do not become sinners because we sin but we sin because we are sinners. Adam died, as God promised, in the day that he ate of the forbidden fruit. All his seed,every person born into this world by him, not only inherited his dead nature but are guilty in him. We die because of Adam's sin not just our own. Rom. 5.

The nature and purpose of the atonement of Christ;
Arminians believe that Christ died in order to save all mankind. That His shed blood is like a treasure chest that can be had if a person will believe by his free will. They contend that the blood of Christ does not apply to you until you believe. They limit the atonement to only those who will by their free will accept it.
Calvinists hold that the atonement of Christ was purposeful, particular and effective. It didn't bring the possibility is redemption based on an act of man but actually appeased the wrath of God for all who were given Him before the foundation of the world. He purposefully accomplished what He intended and actually saved some chosen sinners. His atonement is not contingent on an act of man but actually secures that faith will result. All those for whom He accomplished redemption will believe at the appointed time through the preaching of the Gospel.

The preaching of the Gospel;
Arminians believe in preaching a gospel geared toward moving man to act. They must preach in such a way as though other's salvation depends on them. Their preaching and their witnessing is always, and must be, man centered. It is an appeal to man to do something even though they seek to preach what they believe is the glory of God.
Calvinists, on the other hand, preach a Gospel that is geared toward God and His work in Christ to accomplish the salvation of sinners. We simply tell sinners, every one within our sphere of influence, what God has done in Christ. We do not try to coerce or pigeonhole sinners into making a profession of faith but simply and as clearly as we can proclaim that Christ has saved some people called sinners. If you can believe you are saved. We preach with the assurance that by the Spirit some will hear and believe. It in no way depends on our eloquence or our heartfelt pleas, though our preaching is heartfelt, but on the Spirit of God in Christ. We preach and leave the rest to God the Spirit.

Election;
No one who actually reads the Bible can deny election. Arminians hold that God elects based on foreseen faith. It is as simple as that. Calvinists believe that God's electing love is not based on anything but the good pleasure of His will. He chose a people from the mass of sinners who are the seed of Adam, condemned and guilty, to be he objects of His love, grace and mercy. He gave them to the Son as His people, Who stood as Surety for them, to accomplish His purpose to glorify Himself in sovereign mercy. We preach electing love as opposed to just an election. The Triune God set His wondrous love on some of Adam's race and eternally saved them in the Son. We had nothing to do with it except to be the recipients of His love,grace and mercy. We are no different than any other sinner, though we are surely the worst of sinners in our hearts by nature, and deserve the unmitigated wrath of God as any other. When properly understood it is most humbling and God glorifying. The electing love of God never makes a true believer, whether Calvinist or not, into a haughty and proud person. It humbles them at the feet of Jesus Christ the Lord begging mercy.

I could go on concerning the love of God and other differences but this post is too long already. I have striven to not build any straw men or use polemical language. If I am mistaken in my definitions of what Arminians believe it isn't intentional.

 

[Kersh]

you re not actually responding to my posts. You are just repeating the same thing with different words.

I get what your contention is but simply disagree as I have pointed out. You start with a presupposition taken from a few verses of the NT and reason in a circle. Those verses taken in their context teach the opposite of your supposition.

How so? Specifically, how do 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 teach that compatibilism and libertarianism are so irreparably at odds with one another as to suggest that we cannot at some point set aside our differences for the purpose of evangelism? The reason I ask this is that these are the only passages I have cited and that is the only contention I have made.

Now, as I've said, in full disclosure, I lean towards Arminianism. I attend a seminary at which most of the faculty leans Calvinist . But, I am not here interested in arguing which is the correct view. Nor am I arguing that there is no difference at all. But, rather that the differences are such that, while one cannot be part Calvinist and part Arminian, we have far more in common than different.

I'll be honest, until recently, I would have agree with your posts, except that my loathing would have been poured on Calvinist teaching. But, recently I have had the opportunity to learn about Calvinism from some very smart and godly Calvinists, and this has opened my mind somewhat to the possibility that Calvinism is not as radically opposed to the love of God as I once believed. Moreover, I have learned about the extent to which John Wesley, who is of course one of history's most well known Arminians, regarded his own views on justification as within a "hair's breadth" from Calvinism and that he actually worked alongside his Calvinist contemporaries like Spurgeon and Edwards in advancing the Gospel, who he actually considered to be closer to classical Arminianism than the liberalism of his day that dressed up in the Arminian moniker.

Calvinists, of course, don't teach that we are robots but that our choices are ordained by God who controls all the circumstances and influences that lead to those choices.

This I agree with for the most part, though a few months ago I would not have. This is the view that I have come to understand as essential to compatibilism. One book that helped me to dispel the "robot" caricature of Calvinist free will was "The Doctrine of God" by John Frame. While I disagree with Frame on many issues, I think that he well articulates the role of free will within the Calvinist reading of Scripture.

The Aminian view actually, when thought about carefully, denies total depravity. Which, of course, makes the theology semi-pelagion at best.

You've said this a couple of times, but I disagree. I'd be interested in hearing how your thoughts bring you to the conclusion that Arminianism is contrary to total depravity. Arminius and Wesley both taught total depravity and saw no contradiction.

Our experience of life certainly shows us that we make choices. That isn't denied. What Calvinists deny is that our choices are not free of the influence of our sin nature. We contend that we will always choose sin over God unless the Spirit, by the preaching of the Gospel, gives us life and faith in Christ, in that order. Only when we have been made willing in the day of His power can we even know of our need of Christ. He gives us a new nature that desires God and righteousness. We then choose Christ because we find no other choice is life.

I agree for the most part. But, I would ask, can an unregenerate sinner choose between two sinful courses of action? I'd go one step further and say that even Calvinists would accept that an unregenerate sinner may engage in a course of action that is not inherently sinful, but is still tainted by sin. Would you agree with that?

In short, the idea that sinners sin and that we who have the Spirit of God are led to good deeds (an idea shared by evangelical Calvinists and Arminans) does not in itself resolve the tension between human free will and God's sovereignty. Rather, I see compatibilism (as you articulated it nicely above) and libertarianism as the views of each camp to try to ease that tension.

I use this illustration:
Life and faith in Christ is like water being poured into a glass, the glass simply receives the water passively. It takes no part in it except to be filled. That is what the Spirit does when He gives us life in the new birth. Then once the glass has been filled we take the water and drink it as a thirsty man. That is our active part in it. But there can be no active part until the passive part has occurred.

And, this is where I think that Arminians and Calvinists would disagree. I would not use the glass analogy as a glass being inanimate has no will of its own. However, if we were to ignore that aspect of the analogy, the difference between Arminian and Calvinist soteriology seems to come down to two questions:

1. Does God offer to fill every glass, or only the ones the He has chosen in advance?

2. Can the glass upon being offered a chance to be filled refuse to accept the water?

I understand your disagreement, and I've been there. But, given the increasing hostility to evangelicalism in this world (and particularly in Europe and North America), we really do need to consider how we are to present a united front even in the midst of our disagreements on the proper reading of some aspects of Scripture.

 

[twin1954]

How so? Specifically, how do 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 teach that compatibilism and libertarianism are so irreparably at odds with one another as to suggest that we cannot at some point set aside our differences for the purpose of evangelism? The reason I ask this is that these are the only passages I have cited and that is the only contention I have made.

Now, as I've said, in full disclosure, I lean towards Arminianism. I attend a seminary at which most of the faculty leans Calvinist . But, I am not here interested in arguing which is the correct view. Nor am I arguing that there is no difference at all. But, rather that the differences are such that, while one cannot be part Calvinist and part Arminian, we have far more in common than different.

I'll be honest, until recently, I would have agree with your posts, except that my loathing would have been poured on Calvinist teaching. But, recently I have had the opportunity to learn about Calvinism from some very smart and godly Calvinists, and this has opened my mind somewhat to the possibility that Calvinism is not as radically opposed to the love of God as I once believed. Moreover, I have learned about the extent to which John Wesley, who is of course one of history's most well known Arminians, regarded his own views on justification as within a "hair's breadth" from Calvinism and that he actually worked alongside his Calvinist contemporaries like Spurgeon and Edwards in advancing the Gospel, who he actually considered to be closer to classical Arminianism than the liberalism of his day that dressed up in the Arminian moniker.



This I agree with for the most part, though a few months ago I would not have. This is the view that I have come to understand as essential to compatibilism. One book that helped me to dispel the "robot" caricature of Calvinist free will was "The Doctrine of God" by John Frame. While I disagree with Frame on many issues, I think that he well articulates the role of free will within the Calvinist reading of Scripture.



You've said this a couple of times, but I disagree. I'd be interested in hearing how your thoughts bring you to the conclusion that Arminianism is contrary to total depravity. Arminius and Wesley both taught total depravity and saw no contradiction.



I agree for the most part. But, I would ask, can an unregenerate sinner choose between two sinful courses of action? I'd go one step further and say that even Calvinists would accept that an unregenerate sinner may engage in a course of action that is not inherently sinful, but is still tainted by sin. Would you agree with that?

In short, the idea that sinners sin and that we who have the Spirit of God are led to good deeds (an idea shared by evangelical Calvinists and Arminans) does not in itself resolve the tension between human free will and God's sovereignty. Rather, I see compatibilism (as you articulated it nicely above) and libertarianism as the views of each camp to try to ease that tension.



And, this is where I think that Arminians and Calvinists would disagree. I would not use the glass analogy as a glass being inanimate has no will of its own. However, if we were to ignore that aspect of the analogy, the difference between Arminian and Calvinist soteriology seems to come down to two questions:

1. Does God offer to fill every glass, or only the ones the He has chosen in advance?

2. Can the glass upon being offered a chance to be filled refuse to accept the water?

I understand your disagreement, and I've been there. But, given the increasing hostility to evangelicalism in this world (and particularly in Europe and North America), we really do need to consider how we are to present a united front even in the midst of our disagreements on the proper reading of some aspects of Scripture.

I will do my best to answer this post as soon as I have time to digest and think about my answers. I hope that you recognize no hostility in my posts as there is none intended. I am simply answering as truthfully as I can.

I already know what my answers are to be sure but I want to consider your view in order to address them properly.

I admit that many Calvinists can overlook the differences in our theologies but I am convinced it is a compromise to do so. For me truth is truth and ought never be compromised even though it often puts you on the outside. It isn't that I lack compassion or love it is that I cannot dishonor my God by sugar coating or compromising His truth as revealed to me by the Spirit in the Scriptures. Arminian theology actually breaks my heart. I desire that all men believe and experience what has been given to me through faith even though I know that is not the purpose or will of God. I bow to Him in this and preach the glory of God in sovereign mercy to chosen sinners in Christ alone. Like Luther her I stand I can do no other.

 

[Kersh]

Thank you for taking the time to prepare a thought out response. I wish more people online did that.

I have not found any of your responses to hostile or inappropriate in any way, so no worries there.

I do just want to clarify, I am not suggesting that we should just pretend that our differences don't exist. Rather, my concern is that they are too often overemphasized and lead to more division than is warranted. I say this as someone who has been quick to dismiss Calvinists as believing in a rather sadistic God who is not found in Scripture. The more I learn about Calvinism, I disagree no less than I have in the past, but I find that this disagreement is not nearly as detrimental to Christian community and fellowship as I once believed. Rather, I find that although we resolve certain biblical tensions in very different ways, there are many Armininans and Calvinists who have such a heart for the Gospel that I would rather encourage that than argue about these differences.

 

[98cwitr]

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, there is not explanation for damnation apart from some notion of free will. Likewise, if God desires all to be saved, as is stated in 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, then either all must be saved, God is not omnipotent, or God has allowed some to choose damnation.

Honest Calvinists and Arminians both have to struggle with this, and each has presented its notion of free will in explanation of this dilemma. And while these competing explanations are meaningfully distinct, I would contend that each can be supported by substantial portions of Scripture and each can be refuted by substantial portions of Scripture, while neither is completely inconsistent with the whole of biblical teaching. As I said in the opening post, at the resurrection, I suppose we will find out that both sides were wrong to some extent.

Damnation is not a choice. Sin is a perceived choice, but since we're all sinners, we cannot escape that sin unless it's through Christ. Your argument suggests that a murderer sends himself to prison, but that's not true; a judge sentences him/her to prison. If given the choice, the murderer would continue to live in relative freedom.

If God desires all to be saved, as you're interpreting those verses, then all WILL be saved. Unfortunately, you and I know this is not the case, as so Paul writes:

Romans 9:19-21 New International Version (NIV)

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[a] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

I can logically prove this to you as well:

Let's say I'm eventually going to end up in Hell. Did God know that before He created me? If so, then why did He create me?

Your argument only can be true if either God is not Omniscient and He's not the creator. If He's not Omniscient, He isn't aware of my future choices and therefore wouldn't know if I were bound for Hell or not. If He's not the creator any longer, then He knew I would go to Hell, but is powerless to stop it.

Neither of the above is the God of the Bible. God is Sovereign. I will happily explain the context of your two verses in another post, but want this to remain clear.

 

[98cwitr]

While I do not agree with a few portions, the majority of this drives the points home: 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9, and Universalism | CARM.org

To add, the same word we're translating for "all," or "every" is

Greek Concordance: πάντας (pantas) -- 90 Occurrences

Pantas can also mean "some of all types" or "all of a subset," and thus I am able to conclude that both of these verses conclude that "everyone" and "all people" are in the context of believers, and not literally ALL PEOPLE. This is also confirmed in reading John 3:16-20 as well.

 

[Kersh]

Damnation is not a choice. Sin is a perceived choice, but since we're all sinners, we cannot escape that sin unless it's through Christ. Your argument suggests that a murderer sends himself to prison, but that's not true; a judge sentences him/her to prison. If given the choice, the murderer would continue to live in relative freedom.

If God desires all to be saved, as you're interpreting those verses, then all WILL be saved. Unfortunately, you and I know this is not the case, as so Paul writes:

Romans 9:19-21 New International Version (NIV)

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[a] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

I can logically prove this to you as well:

Let's say I'm eventually going to end up in Hell. Did God know that before He created me? If so, then why did He create me?

Your argument only can be true if either God is not Omniscient and He's not the creator. If He's not Omniscient, He isn't aware of my future choices and therefore wouldn't know if I were bound for Hell or not. If He's not the creator any longer, then He knew I would go to Hell, but is powerless to stop it.

Neither of the above is the God of the Bible. God is Sovereign. I will happily explain the context of your two verses in another post, but want this to remain clear.

I wasn't making an argument. I was pointing out the tension that (I thought) was evident to both Calvinists and Armininans. There is much for me to disagree with in your response, but my point in this thread is not to settle the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism. Better minds than ours have been debating this for centuries, and willncontiwil to do so. The reason that this debate continues amongst Bible inerrantist Evangelical Christians is that both positions can be defended and refuted by reasonable interpretations of Scripture. My point is that, while there are clear distinctions between us, we often overstate these to the detriment of our mutual evangelistic ends.

Edited to add: Just to be clear, I am operating on the assumption that Calvinists regard Armininans as saved but mistaken and vice versa. If either side sees the other side as unregenerate because of these perceived theological errors, then I would have to concede that we do not share the same evangelistic goals. I, for one, while disagreeing with my Calvinists brethren believe that they are no less saved by the blood of Jesus thany Arminian brethren and vice versa.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So, then we are left with the question, why do some depraved sinners become saved and others do not.

I don't understand how someone with the Arminian viewpoint can claim to accept total depravity. If a depraved person can choose what is good, then that depravity must not be total. It sounds more like really bad depravity, but not total. That would mean that some people are better than others and that's why they get into Heaven.

I don't see the two sides as inherently opposed. I just see Arminianism as the near side of the curtain, while Calvinism attempts to view both sides of the curtain. It's like the argument between a man who admires the sunset and the man who chastises him for not acknowledging heliocentrism. The first man merely observes what he sees, regarding it from a human and rather poetic standpoint. The second man regards it abstractly, seeing the sunset through the planetary model in his head. At the end of the day, both still have to interact with the sun in a geocentric way. Similarly, Calvinism is an abstract and technically more correct way of looking at our relationship with God. Arminianism is a more direct and objective view, the layman's perspective. The Arminian can argue against predestination like a man arguing that the Earth is flat, and though he were wrong, both the Calvinist and the Arminian still have to approach their own salvation and world evangelism as though the Arminian were correct. All of the advances in quantum physics never changed the Newtonian physics that we live by, and even if all Christians turned Calvinist by tomorrow, we would still have to approach the world like Arminians, because that is the more human perspective, and we happen to be humans.

 

[twin1954]

Thank you for taking the time to prepare a thought out response. I wish more people online did that.

I have not found any of your responses to hostile or inappropriate in any way, so no worries there.

I do just want to clarify, I am not suggesting that we should just pretend that our differences don't exist. Rather, my concern is that they are too often overemphasized and lead to more division than is warranted. I say this as someone who has been quick to dismiss Calvinists as believing in a rather sadistic God who is not found in Scripture. The more I learn about Calvinism, I disagree no less than I have in the past, but I find that this disagreement is not nearly as detrimental to Christian community and fellowship as I once believed. Rather, I find that although we resolve certain biblical tensions in very different ways, there are many Armininans and Calvinists who have such a heart for the Gospel that I would rather encourage that than argue about these differences.

Sorry but between working and going to The Players I have'nt had time to even look at your post again. Will do when I can.

 

[DeaconDean]

"Free will" will forever separate Calvinists and Arminians.

Arthur W. Pink wrote an excellent paragraph on just this, which shows contrary to Arminian beliefs, it is not the "will" that man follows, but the heart!

"Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs the man, but the Word of God teaches that it is the heart which is the dominating center of our being. Many Scriptures might be quoted in
substantiation of this. “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23).
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,” etc.
(Mark 7:21). Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back to their source and declares that their fountain is the “heart” and not the will! Again: “This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, but their heart is far from Me” (Matt. 15:8). If further proof were required we might call attention to the fact
that the word “heart” is found in the Bible more than three times oftener than is the word “will,” even
though nearly half of the references to the latter refer to God’s will! When we affirm that it is the heart and not the will which governs the man, we are not merely striving about words, but insisting on a distinction that is of vital importance. Here is an individual before whom two alternatives are placed; which will he choose? We answer, the one which is most agreeable to himself, i.e., his “heart”-the innermost core of his being? Before the sinner is set a life of virtue and piety, and a life of sinful indulgence; which will he follow? The latter. Why? Because that is his choice. But does that prove the will is Sovereign? Not at all. Go back from effect to cause. Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it-and he does prefer it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, though of course he does not enjoy the effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his heart is sinful. The same alternatives, in like manner, confront the Christian, and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and virtue. Why? Because God has given him a new heart or nature. Hence we say it is not the will which makes the sinner impervious to all appeals to “forsake his way,” but his corrupt and evil heart. He will not come to Christ because he does not want to, and he does not want to because his heart hates Him and loves sin: see Jeremiah 17:9!

In what does the sinner’s freedom consist? This question is naturally suggested by what we have just said above. The sinner is "free" in the sense of being unforced from without. God never forces the sinner to sin. But the sinner is not free to do either good or evil because an evil heart within is ever inclining him toward sin. Let us illustrate what we have in mind. I hold in my hand a book. I release it;
what happens? It falls. In which direction? Downwards; always downwards. Why? Because, answering the law of gravity, its own weight sinks it. Suppose I desire that book to occupy a position three feet higher; then what? I must lift it; a power outside of that book must raise it. Such is the relationship which fallen man sustains toward God. Whilst Divine power up-holds him he is preserved from plunging still deeper into sin; let that power be withdrawn and he falls-his own weight (of sin) drags him down. God does not push him down anymore than I did that book. Let all Divine restraint be removed and every man is capable of becoming, would become, a Cain, a Pharaoh, a Judas. How then is the sinner to move heavenward? By an act of his own will? Not so. A power outside of himself must grasp hold of him and lift him every inch of the way. The sinner is free, but free in one direction only-free to fall, free to sin. As the Word expresses it: "For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from rightousness" (Rom. 6:20). The sinner is free to do as he pleases, always as he pleases (except as he is restrained by God), but his pleasure is to sin."

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, Chapter 7, God's Sovereignty and Human Will, sections 1 and 2.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[98cwitr]

I wasn't making an argument. I was pointing out the tension that (I thought) was evident to both Calvinists and Armininans. There is much for me to disagree with in your response, but my point in this thread is not to settle the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism. Better minds than ours have been debating this for centuries, and willncontiwil to do so. The reason that this debate continues amongst Bible inerrantist Evangelical Christians is that both positions can be defended and refuted by reasonable interpretations of Scripture. My point is that, while there are clear distinctions between us, we often overstate these to the detriment of our mutual evangelistic ends.

Edited to add: Just to be clear, I am operating on the assumption that Calvinists regard Armininans as saved but mistaken and vice versa. If either side sees the other side as unregenerate because of these perceived theological errors, then I would have to concede that we do not share the same evangelistic goals. I, for one, while disagreeing with my Calvinists brethren believe that they are no less saved by the blood of Jesus thany Arminian brethren and vice versa.

As Dean points out above, Calvinists (and others) do not believe that "free will" is anything more than an illusion. I am not seeing this "shared tension" you speak of.