Free will

[Kersh]

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.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and yet there exists damnation and death, then there is an implicit tension. The Arminian resolves that tension by saying that God allows us the freedom to choose contrary to his benevolence.

The Calvinists that I have known personally would say that we do have free will, but only in the sense that we are free to do that which we most desire. Since, for any given choice, there can be only one greatest desire, the outcome of every choice we make is already known to an omniscient God who knows what the circumstances will be at every given moment and what we will desire in response. Likewise, God, in his omnipotence can certainly shape conditions to cause our greatest desire to be to do that which accomplishes his ends, even if it is in total rebellion to him. So, the compatibilist would argue that we have free will, but this does not imply the ability to truly choose between alternatives.

It sounds like you are proposing the idea that free will does not exist, neither in a compatibilist sense nor in a libertarian sense. If that is the case, then yeah, I would agree with you, we are quite far apart theologically.

But the difference between Calvinist compatibilism and Arminian foreknowledge is much more slight.

 

[DeaconDean]

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and yet there exists damnation and death, then there is an implicit tension. The Arminian resolves that tension by saying that God allows us the freedom to choose contrary to his benevolence.

There are no Calvinist that I personally know of that deny man's "free will". We just deny that it is as "free" as Arminians suggest.

I have already shown that it is not the "will" that directs amn, on the contrary, scriptures tell us it is the heart.

The Calvinists that I have known personally would say that we do have free will, but only in the sense that we are free to do that which we most desire.

Which is correct.

Since, for any given choice, there can be only one greatest desire, the outcome of every choice we make is already known to an omniscient God who knows what the circumstances will be at every given moment and what we will desire in response. Likewise, God, in his omnipotence can certainly shape conditions to cause our greatest desire to be to do that which accomplishes his ends, even if it is in total rebellion to him. So, the compatibilist would argue that we have free will, but this does not imply the ability to truly choose between alternatives.

It sounds like you are proposing the idea that free will does not exist, neither in a compatibilist sense nor in a libertarian sense. If that is the case, then yeah, I would agree with you, we are quite far apart theologically.

But the difference between Calvinist compatibilism and Arminian foreknowledge is much more slight.

"Free will" as Arminians describe, does not exist.

God indeed used Pharaoh to accomplish His means, but nowhere are we told that God saved him either. If a man donates half his paycheck to feed, clothe, and educate the less fortunate, that is a good thing. But does that mean he cannot at the same time, be a "serial killer"?

Jesus said that every person that commits sin, is a slave to it. (cf. Jn.8:32)

If you were at one time a servant, slave to sin, how is it man can all of a sudden, of his own "free will" suddenly say "I'm not going to sin, and turn to God"?

He can't.

That why Jesus taught us of the parable of the treasure.

"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." -Mt. 6:21 (KJV)

What Adam did in the Garden, comes down through time to us. "For all have sinned in Adam". (cf. Rom. 5:12)

That is why so much emphasis is placed on "regeneration".

Scriptures tells us that man has, prior to regeneration" a heart of stone" (cf. Eze. 36:26) And once regenerated, we are given a heart of flesh. (Ibid)

As long as one has a heart of stone, it will direct his/her path.

When a person is regenerated and given that heart of flesh, the heart no longer stony and creates within us the desire to follow after Christ. Not that the sin nature is eradicated, because it will always be with us. Instead of chasing the things of this world, which our heart would have us do, we begin to follow after the things of God. It is only then, after regeneration, that has a somewhat "free-will". But not until.

Man is indeed "free", free to do as he pleases, but his "will" is a servant of the heart and flat out, Jeremiah tells us about what condition a man's heart is prior to regeneration:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" -Jer. 17:9 (KJV)

And Arminians would have us to believe that in spite of what Jeremiah says, one can simply stop what they have been doing, because man has a "free will"?

Jeremiah answered that too saying:

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." -Jer. 13:23 (KJV)

I cannot see it, nor do I believe it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Let us remember what Arthur Pink said, that I quoted earlier.

Building on that, I provide an old post from years ago:

"No person here has argued that man does not have a free-will. Certainly man was given a will, but where we disagree is to the extent to its freeness.

In Gen. 6:5 we read:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

After the flood, we read:

"And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" -Gen. 8:26 (KJV)

Jumping ahead in time, we read:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" -Jer. 17:9 (KJV)

Jumping further ahead in time, we read:

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man:" -Mt. 15:18-20 (KJV)

We even read:

"Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." -Prov. 4:23 (KJV)

How can the will be truly free, if everything that defiles a man comes from the heart and the thoughts of the heart are only continuously evil from his youth up?

If man will is free to makes choices which concern life and death, and it lies in his intellect, how is it scriptures dictate that it is the heart which makes decisions?

If mans will is truly free, how is it scriptures make it subject to the heart?

How can mans will be free when it is subject to, servant of, the heart?

How can the will be both servant and sovereign?

If the will is subject to the heart as scriptures say in Prov. 4:23, how can it be "free" as Arminians suggest?

Calvinists stand accused of:

God has not given man free-will

And that simply isn't true.

It is my arguement that mans will is only "free" on the glourious day of salvation;

"Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" -Psa. 110:3 (KJV)

Before man is saved by Christ, he is in bondage to sin. And if in bondage to sin, then his will is not, nor ever was "free".

Arthur W. Pink is right when he says:

The sinner's will is enslaved because it is in bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart.

It is only after the point of salvation that mans will is truly free:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." -Jn. 8:32 (KJV)

Free from the bondage to sin, and free to serve God as He wants."

Original post: Link

In all this time here, my position has not changed, and unless God Himself tells me otherwise, it will not change.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

One last word.

Calvinism is always been characterized as twisting God's word, changing definitions to suit our own purposes, and of saying man has no free will.

In order to understand, I will tell every Arminian to read two classic works.

Martin Luther's great work "The Bondage of the Will".

And Jonathan Edwards great work "The Freedom of the Will".

Both books have stood the test of time, and unless I'm mistaken, to this day, have not been successfully refuted.

If you really, sincerely desire to have an understanding of man's "free will", you will read these.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[98cwitr]

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and yet there exists damnation and death, then there is an implicit tension. The Arminian resolves that tension by saying that God allows us the freedom to choose contrary to his benevolence.

The Calvinists that I have known personally would say that we do have free will, but only in the sense that we are free to do that which we most desire. Since, for any given choice, there can be only one greatest desire, the outcome of every choice we make is already known to an omniscient God who knows what the circumstances will be at every given moment and what we will desire in response. Likewise, God, in his omnipotence can certainly shape conditions to cause our greatest desire to be to do that which accomplishes his ends, even if it is in total rebellion to him. So, the compatibilist would argue that we have free will, but this does not imply the ability to truly choose between alternatives.

It sounds like you are proposing the idea that free will does not exist, neither in a compatibilist sense nor in a libertarian sense. If that is the case, then yeah, I would agree with you, we are quite far apart theologically.

But the difference between Calvinist compatibilism and Arminian foreknowledge is much more slight.

Man's will certainly exists, but it is anything but free. We will only do that which it is our nature to do. Check out Ezekiel 36.

 

[twin1954]

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and yet there exists damnation and death, then there is an implicit tension. The Arminian resolves that tension by saying that God allows us the freedom to choose contrary to his benevolence.

The Calvinists that I have known personally would say that we do have free will, but only in the sense that we are free to do that which we most desire. Since, for any given choice, there can be only one greatest desire, the outcome of every choice we make is already known to an omniscient God who knows what the circumstances will be at every given moment and what we will desire in response. Likewise, God, in his omnipotence can certainly shape conditions to cause our greatest desire to be to do that which accomplishes his ends, even if it is in total rebellion to him. So, the compatibilist would argue that we have free will, but this does not imply the ability to truly choose between alternatives.

It sounds like you are proposing the idea that free will does not exist, neither in a compatibilist sense nor in a libertarian sense. If that is the case, then yeah, I would agree with you, we are quite far apart theologically.

But the difference between Calvinist compatibilism and Arminian foreknowledge is much more slight.

I see the problem now, you believe that God is omnibenevolent. I do not find that in the Scriptures. Calvinists, at least the real ones, don't believe that God is benevolent to all. That is where your "tension" comes in. There is no tension in the Scriptures because God nowhere tells us that He loves all men. I know you have probably heard the arguments before so I will not go over them again, unless you want me to, concerning John 3:16 and other passages used as proof texts that God loves all men. If He does love all men then it is a necessary conclusion that His love is meaningless and useless because it can do nothing for all those who go to eternal damnation. It would be without power, without purpose and without satisfaction if that were true. God loves His people as the Scriptures declare everywhere.

So you see that there is no "tension" when you take all of the Scriptures as a whole to build your doctrine. Rather than build your doctrine on a few isolated passages that support your presupposition take the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole. The Old Testament is revealed in the New and the New testament is concealed in the Old. Where was God's love and benevolence to the Jebusites, the Hittites and the Amorites? He said to destroy them all including their animals. Why was the atonement that the high priest went into the Holy of Holies every year with the blood of the passover sacrifice only for the Israelites and not the Caananites? Just a couple of questions that I hope will get you to considering the Scriptures as a whole.

 

[twin1954]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread. I have been busy and much has been said since I
was here.

 

[Kersh]

I see the problem now, you believe that God is omnibenevolent. I do not find that in the Scriptures. Calvinists, at least the real ones, don't believe that God is benevolent to all. That is where your "tension" comes in. There is no tension in the Scriptures because God nowhere tells us that He loves all men. I know you have probably heard the arguments before so I will not go over them again, unless you want me to, concerning John 3:16 and other passages used as proof texts that God loves all men. If He does love all men then it is a necessary conclusion that His love is meaningless and useless because it can do nothing for all those who go to eternal damnation. It would be without power, without purpose and without satisfaction if that were true. God loves His people as the Scriptures declare everywhere.

So you see that there is no "tension" when you take all of the Scriptures as a whole to build your doctrine. Rather than build your doctrine on a few isolated passages that support your presupposition take the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole. The Old Testament is revealed in the New and the New testament is concealed in the Old. Where was God's love and benevolence to the Jebusites, the Hittites and the Amorites? He said to destroy them all including their animals. Why was the atonement that the high priest went into the Holy of Holies every year with the blood of the passover sacrifice only for the Israelites and not the Caananites? Just a couple of questions that I hope will get you to considering the Scriptures as a whole.

I actually kinda wondered if we were speaking past each other on the topic of God's benevolence. Although I do believe that the case for God's omnibenvolence can be made from Scripture (in fact, I wonder how Scripture is intelligible without it), my purpose here is not to argue that point. Perhaps, that can be a discussion for another thread at some point.

The reason that I am posing questions I have been posing is to better understand the differences between Calvinists and Arminians. My experience is that among Baptists, there is pretty even divide between the two views, and most Baptist denominations (except perhaps for the Reformed Baptists and the Free Will Baptists to name a couple) do not take a position on this debate. I anticipate that when I complete seminary, I will be serving in ministry within the SBC, which is quite split on the issue. This means that I may serve people who are strongly Calvinist and some who are strongly Arminian, though I suspect that most SBCers are more apathetic on the question. Serving in this context, it seems, requires a certain amount of understanding of (and even sympathy for) the opposing position.

Perhaps, I was somewhat naive thinking that reconciliation is really plauisble among the most extreme Calvinists and the most extreme Arminians. However, at the end of the day, I do firmly believe that, while we understand certain aspects of God's nature differently, we are working towards the same (or at least notably similar) ends.

 

[Kersh]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread. I have been busy and much has been said since I
was here.

No problem. Honestly, I sometimes wish there was a mandatory waiting period on CF for responses. Too many times, we respond without putting much thought or prayer into our responses and the result is inevitably a flame war of some level or another. I'm glad that you take the time to think through your responses and more importantly to live your real life. That's a good thing, not something to apologize for.

 

[twin1954]

I actually kinda wondered if we were speaking past each other on the topic of God's benevolence. Although I do believe that the case for God's omnibenvolence can be made from Scripture (in fact, I wonder how Scripture is intelligible without it), my purpose here is not to argue that point. Perhaps, that can be a discussion for another thread at some point.

The reason that I am posing questions I have been posing is to better understand the differences between Calvinists and Arminians. My experience is that among Baptists, there is pretty even divide between the two views, and most Baptist denominations (except perhaps for the Reformed Baptists and the Free Will Baptists to name a couple) do not take a position on this debate. I anticipate that when I complete seminary, I will be serving in ministry within the SBC, which is quite split on the issue. This means that I may serve people who are strongly Calvinist and some who are strongly Arminian, though I suspect that most SBCers are more apathetic on the question. Serving in this context, it seems, requires a certain amount of understanding of (and even sympathy for) the opposing position.

Perhaps, I was somewhat naive thinking that reconciliation is really plauisble among the most extreme Calvinists and the most extreme Arminians. However, at the end of the day, I do firmly believe that, while we understand certain aspects of God's nature differently, we are working towards the same (or at least notably similar) ends.

You will find many "Calvinists" who hold to common grace. I don't. I am convinced by the Scriptures that God is long suffering toward the reprobate because He uses them in some way for the good of His people. Isa. 43:3-4 is one of the passages that convinces me of that truth.

 

[Sam91]

I do not understand why we subscribe to either. Why not just subscribe to what the Bible says. I have read the Calvinistic explanation in John Piper's book and couldn't be sure it was completely correct.

I haven't read anything explaining armienism... I suspect I will find that unconvincing too.

 

[Dave L]

Free Will = people chose to save themselves at Christ's expence = salvation by self-righteousness.

Bible = God saves those who cannot save themselves, at Christ's expense = salvation by grace alone

People who choose to save themselves have faith in their faith as the condition they must meet.

People who cannot save themselves trust in Christ as their only means of acceptance with God.

 

[Radagast]

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.

It's nice to see a post that's charitable and uses words correctly.

I must say, though, that I can't quite see how foreknowledge plus libertarian free will work together. That's why the open theists go the way that they do: it's the only way to rescue libertarian free will.

Here on CF I've met quite a few people that call themselves Arminian, but sound more like open theist Pelagians than like Jacobus Arminius.

 

[Dave L]

A simple story about sovereignty and free will.


A kid has a wagon with a goat. We know goats have a mind of their own, and if any creature has a free will, it is a goat. So the kid ties a carrot to his cane pole and dangles it in front of the goat. The goat wants the carrot so the kid steers the goat in the direction he wants the goat to pull the wagon. If the kid dangles the carrot to the right, the goat chooses to go in that direction. If the kid wants to stop, he raises the carrot. If he wants to travel further he dangles the carrot in front of the goat in the direction he and also the goat choose to travel.


People, like the goat, always choose for a reason. But God controls the reasons.


London Baptist Confession; Westminster Confession: Chapter 3:1 God's Eternal Decree;


“God, from all eternity, did—by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will—freely and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass. Yet he ordered all things in such a way that he is not the author of sin, nor does he force his creatures to act against their wills; neither is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

 

[Sovereign Grace]

The will is driven by the desires of the heart, as DeaconDean already stated. Anything that is driven by a compulsion is not free. It is bound to that which that compulsion comes from. The lost person has a heart that hates God. Read Romans 8:5-9. Paul gives the status of both types of ppl in the world, the lost and saved, the unregenerate and regenerate, the lovers of God and the haters of God. The lost person will not come to God because he hates Him. Unless God first quickens him, he can not and will not choose to come to Him.

 

[Sam91]

I actually kinda wondered if we were speaking past each other on the topic of God's benevolence. Although I do believe that the case for God's omnibenvolence can be made from Scripture (in fact, I wonder how Scripture is intelligible without it), my purpose here is not to argue that point. Perhaps, that can be a discussion for another thread at some point.

The reason that I am posing questions I have been posing is to better understand the differences between Calvinists and Arminians. My experience is that among Baptists, there is pretty even divide between the two views, and most Baptist denominations (except perhaps for the Reformed Baptists and the Free Will Baptists to name a couple) do not take a position on this debate. I anticipate that when I complete seminary, I will be serving in ministry within the SBC, which is quite split on the issue. This means that I may serve people who are strongly Calvinist and some who are strongly Arminian, though I suspect that most SBCers are more apathetic on the question. Serving in this context, it seems, requires a certain amount of understanding of (and even sympathy for) the opposing position.

Perhaps, I was somewhat naive thinking that reconciliation is really plauisble among the most extreme Calvinists and the most extreme Arminians. However, at the end of the day, I do firmly believe that, while we understand certain aspects of God's nature differently, we are working towards the same (or at least notably similar) ends.

Hi. I do not know my pastors view on this. I have listened to him for over a year. He just preaches on the Bible and what it says. He doesn't avoid a chapter or verse. His sermons are great. We go through a book in full over time. But not every week because I am sure he must pray about what to preach. I must admit it was funny when during one section of Zechariah (evening services) he had to admit that he didn't fully understand that section. The sermon still made sense.

I think that it isn't hard to preach to a Church which is divided on that issue because to a big section it is irrelevant. But sticking to what the Bible says, referencing other parts which are necessary you can avoid it being an issue. I haven't heard anything contrary to my beliefs yet at the Church. I am not in either camp. Having not explored Arminism but don't trust Calvinism. It doesn't sound like the same Gospel to me.

 

[Sam91]

The will is driven by the desires of the heart, as DeaconDean already stated. Anything that is driven by a compulsion is not free. It is bound to that which that compulsion comes from. The lost person has a heart that hates God. Read Romans 8:5-9. Paul gives the status of both types of ppl in the world, the lost and saved, the unregenerate and regenerate, the lovers of God and the haters of God. The lost person will not come to God because he hates Him. Unless God first quickens him, he can not and will not choose to come to Him.

I do not agree with that. Otherwise why would God desire All men would be saved? Also why would He punish the wicked that He created if they were not to be given a chance to repent?

God shaped us. Gave us all the ways that we think and feel. I believe deep down somewhere that we all are given the propensity to choose when He calls. To me that is biblical to have the choice to refuse.

I do believe in predestination too because if it wasn't for God creating me the way He did and taking special care of me through my childhood I wouldn't have responded. I do not think anyone can take credit for responding to God. He gave us everything we own, even our ears to hear. But I do believe every person has at least one chance.

If we didn't have free will all would end up saved because it says God desires it. He is just, holy, fair but sovereign. He could have stopped people being born, made sure they were going to be righteous at anytime. Especially seeing as He is all knowing. So if there was not a real freedom in that choice, and all were not saved God would not be the God He is, therefore He has his reasons for allowing us to choose. He put the tree in the Garden for a reason. Even Adam and Eve had the chance to choose to obey. He could have started over if He wanted. This free will is important, even if we do not understand now.

I was also arguing the other side of free will with an Arminian a few times last year. I believe that I no longer have free will. That I am Christ's and to choose my will now is to be in rebellion. I sacrificed my right free will in choosing to follow Him. He says if we love Him, we will obey Him. I only love Him because He loved me first and saved me. What is the point in that if it wasn't a fair and free choice? Free will glorifies God.

I am sorry for the lack of Bible verses. It is after 1am here. I can find the scriptures if needed.

 

[TCassidy]

Otherwise why would God desire All men would be saved?

Because He loves His creation.

Also why would He punish the wicked that He created if they were not to be given a chance to repent?

Because they were given a chance, and rejected it.

I believe deep down somewhere that we all are given the propensity to choose when He calls.

Yes, and all the lost reject His call.

To me that is biblical to have the choice to refuse.

And every lost person chooses to refuse.

If we didn't have free will all would end up saved because it says God desires it.

Be we don't have free will. The lost man is not free, he is in bondage to the law of sin and death. The regenerate man is not free, he 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.

Even Adam and Eve had the chance to choose to obey.

They were not yet fallen creatures. They were still in their innocence. They, as yet, did not have their fallen sin nature.

This free will is important, even if we do not understand now.

Yes, it is important that the lost person's will is not free, it is in bondage to the law of sin and death. And the regenerate man's will is not free, it is bound to the law of New Life in Christ.

That I am Christ's and to choose my will now is to be in rebellion.

Agreed. You are bound to the law of New Life in Christ, and that should guide your actions.

I only love Him because He loved me first and saved me. What is the point in that if it wasn't a fair and free choice?

Because He loved you before you loved Him, and He regenerated you so you could love Him.

Free will glorifies God.

"Free will" denies the word of God. See above. The unregenerate man is not free, he is in bondage to the law of sin and death. The regenerate man is not free, he is bound to the law of New Life in Christ.