Idolaterous free will?

[armothe]

I do not mean to put anybody on the spot; but in my quest to study Calvinism I came upon this quote by a Calvinist in another thread.

After all, the Lord knows best, and who am I to muck it up with an idolaterous free will:

What exactly is this stating?
Could either the author or perhaps another Calvinist explain what an idolaterous free will means?

-A

 

[Rick Otto]

Don't judge a doctrine by its professing adherents.
He could've meant anything, but most likely it refers to the very idea of a will being free as idolutrous.
It requires exaltation of self above God to consider oneself free of God's will, in the broadest possible sense, which is, that everything that happens is God's omniscient omnipotent will, all of creation being under His jurisdiction.
The paradox is that God holds man responsible for his actions & condition. God creates "evil" Isa45:7, but man's wicked heart is the fountainhead of sin.

Don't try to understand from a position of what YOU think is fair or just, but from God's perspective. That might help you understand.

 

[eldermike]

I think it means what it says. Free will exists, and it seeks after Idols.

Only God can change that.

Ofcourse, it could mean something else depending on the context.

Eldermike

 

[geebob]

supposedly, free will elevates man too much because anything that is determinative other than God sucks away to much glory.

But here's the thing. If man is elevated due to free will, then man is elevated because God created him that way.

A great God creates a great creation. It doesn't take away from God for there to be something good about his creation. Quite the opposite.

It's a lousy God that makes a lousy creation. Sometimes some calvinists are so self defacing of humanity, that it's simply disrespectful to the work of the creator.

And they point to sin as taking away our value, but that simply doesn't pan out. We are created in the image of God and that hasn't changed since the fall.

Gen 9:6

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

 

[geebob]

I think it means what it says. Free will exists, and it seeks after Idols.

free will is neutral. If people can freely worship idols then it follows that they can instead freely worship God.

 

[armothe]

free will is neutral. If people can freely worship idols then it follows that they can instead freely worship God.

Right...see; that is where I am confused.

I thought Calvinists believe man has no free will, whatsoever; and that man has only the ability to do evil.

Hence how can man have "idolaterous" (or evil) free will?

Free will does indeed imply both the freedom to do good or to do bad.

Don't try to understand from a position of what YOU think is fair or just, but from God's perspective. That might help you understand.

Well, that's nice and all, but nobody can say for certain how God defines justice. All we have to go on is what we read in the Bible and our own human logic.

-A

 

[eldermike]

free will is neutral. If people can freely worship idols then it follows that they can instead freely worship God.

I beleive in Total Depravity of man. Our nature is against God, you will not find God alone in any type of search for the Truth. You will find money, cars, fame, power and many other Idols.

 

[Rick Otto]

geebob,
even if you consider that "freedom" a good thing, do you not agree that, "Too much of a good thing is NOT a good thing"?
I mean the adjective itself undermines the notion...
how free is free?
And then there is the question, free to do what? Sin?
That being an option doesn't equal freedom in my calculations. We're either in bondage to God or to sin.
We might be less than perfect slaves, but we know the voice of our master, & it is not our own.
Sure we're created in His image (pre-fall), but since then we've acquired a "dark glass" over our mind's eye. The eye that alters, alters all.
Could God create a sentient being that would defy His will? He would have to will to do so, wouldn't He?
Let's say that's exactly what He did. Why might He do that? I think He had a point, and cruelty had nothin' to do with it. I think it was all about God's glory, Justice, & Mercy. To make it all hinge on my decision seems like cosmic myopia.
Adam did the defacing. Tuyndale & Calvin simply acknowledged it completely.

 

[Rick Otto]

armothe,
God can say how, & I think the scriptures are nice & all that way. Our own reason & logic can be calibrated to scripture.
Had you placed that "idolotrous free will" in context, you woul've understood the subjective usage of the adjective "free" rather than assume it's abstract, objective meaning - unconditionally free.
But unconditional freedom is an oxymoron. Freedom is a relationship that occurs within a limited circumstance. Only God Himself is absolutely free.

 

[geebob]

beleive in Total Depravity of man. Our nature is against God, you will not find God alone in any type of search for the Truth. You will find money, cars, fame, power and many other Idols

I took amorthe's quote as a criticism against the free will theist's view of freedom. As such, what you say above is of little relevence. Then again, perhaps this is a calvinist who speaks of free will only in a rebellious sense. Of course it would be a layman's usage as most calvinistic scholars view freedom positively redefining it as compatibilism. As such, my criticism would be of little use, but I don't consider that that matters a greate deal as it is not a understanding that speaks to the debate today nor any prevelent and significant understanding of freedom.



rick

even if you consider that "freedom" a good thing, do you not agree that, "Too much of a good thing is NOT a good thing"?
I mean the adjective itself undermines the notion...
how free is free?

God gave us freedom for four purposes.

Most importantly, so that we may freely choose to love him and act righteously. That freedom entails the possibility of rebellion. How much freedom is necessary here? just enough for that purpose and just enough entailed the possibility (not the certainty) entailed the possibility for rebellion.

the three other purpososes of freedom are are for the following:

that we may reflect the image of God in this way as he is free,
that we may be creative (thus further reflecting the image of God),
that we may be able to deliberate establishes a high level of consciousness (which also reflects the image of God).

And then there is the question, free to do what? Sin?

nope, just free to love him, but that entails the freedom to sin. you can't be free to love God when you are created for that purpose without having the freedom to rebel.

We're either in bondage to God or to sin.
We might be less than perfect slaves, but we know the voice of our master, & it is not our own.

bondage and slavery are metaphores. They don't necessarily imply determinism.

slaves can rebel. bondage to the egyptians didn't prevent the israelites from crying out to God for help.

Sure we're created in His image (pre-fall), but since then we've acquired a "dark glass" over our mind's eye. The eye that alters, alters all.

we are still in his image:
Gen 9:6

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

(this is after the fall)

And Paul did not use the dark glass metaphore to negate that we are free.

Could God create a sentient being that would defy His will? He would have to will to do so, wouldn't He?
Let's say that's exactly what He did. Why might He do that? I think He had a point, and cruelty had nothin' to do with it. I think it was all about God's glory, Justice, & Mercy.

see my discussion above. Also, there's nothing glorious about a God who reprobates.

To make it all hinge on my decision seems like cosmic myopia.

God is very taken with humans. nothing wrong with viewing them and their decisions as important. Scripture does after all.

 

[eldermike]

I took amorthe's quote as a criticism against the free will theist's view of freedom. As such, what you say above is of little relevence. Then again, perhaps this is a calvinist who speaks of free will only in a rebellious sense. Of course it would be a layman's usage as most calvinistic scholars view freedom positively redefining it as compatibilism. As such, my criticism would be of little use, but I don't consider that that matters a greate deal as it is not a understanding that speaks to the debate today nor any prevelent and significant understanding of freedom.

Hmmm, I guess your remark about the usefullness of your criticism has some value here.

 

[geebob]

why, was it your quote? do you know the intention behind it?

 

[eldermike]

why, was it your quote? do you know the intention behind it?

No, I was taking a stab at it as "another Calvinist", the OP left me that room, I think?

I also said:

Ofcourse, it could mean something else depending on the context.

Could either the author or perhaps another Calvinist explain what an idolaterous free will means?

 

[Rick Otto]

geebob, God maay be 'taken' w/humans as you say, but He doesn't place their importance above His own. Taken as He is, He's very particular about assigning glory.
Divine reprobation is is the surface reflection. Look beneath & see the depth of God's purpose transcend your own filtered concept of freedom. It is dysfunctional because it denies God's omnipotence by limiting His jurisdiction & creative freedom.
Determinism doesn't require micromanagement. Sin nature is as reliably sinful as water is reliably gonna run downhill. It may involve a measure of randomness, but a predictable measure.
Do a word study on glory & recalibrate.
Your Four Purposes for Freedom was really swell, but it didn't really mean anything, because your definition of freedom is questionable, if only because you haven't defined it, other than to claim it as a posession. And God given at that. I can find where we've been given liberty, but not freedom in the limited topic of volition. If we were free, consequence would be of no consideration, for we would be free of that as well.
I did not use the dark glass metaphore to NEGATE that we are free, either. I used it to show how severely limited that freedom is, not deny it exists.
Denying it exists is too shocking to common sensibilities. It was on the list of reasons Tyndale was flamed. I'm no fool. I can see how easy it can be to get kicked outta here.

 

[Rick Otto]

Is that a Stratocaster, eldermike?
I play keyboards & guitars.

 

[eldermike]

Is that a Stratocaster, eldermike?

It's a Jazz bass. I play guitar and bass. I play bass in a very active Christian band.

Eldermike

 

[geebob]

He doesn't place their importance above His own.

of course not. Nothing I said implies any differently. God created a magnificent creation which only attests to his greatness. It doesn't detract from God at all. It attests that he is a wise, powerful, and loving creator. Reprobation if true would attest to the opposite.

It is dysfunctional because it denies God's omnipotence by limiting His jurisdiction & creative freedom.

not at all. I deny neither. I believe God really could have created an exhaustively determined world. God didn't have to create free beings other than himself.

You are confusing omnipotence with soverignty. God is omnipotent in the most powerful way that is possible. But in his omnipotence, he created free creatures and in consistency with his decision to do that, he practises general soverignty as opposed to meticulous soverignty.

Determinism doesn't require micromanagement.

I won't split hairs on this one. I think I know what you mean and I use the terms differently but I'm sure I don't understand theological determinism differently than you do. I know most theological determinists don't believe in "occasionalism" where every single thing that happens happens via the direct power of God. Denying that view won't change my opinion of theological determinism in the slightest as my rejection of it doesn't rely on the denial of occasionalism.

Sin nature is as reliably sinful as water is reliably gonna run downhill.

thus God enables (which does not mean that he determines) all men to escape and respond positively to him.

because your definition of freedom is questionable

of course it is to calvinists. I can defend it biblically though. As a matter of fact, you should see what I've written on 1 corinthians 10:13 in amorthe's "I sinned..." thread. It is one of the many scriptures that powerfully support libertarian free will and more specifically, it is probably the best verse to that end.

if only because you haven't defined it

ah. To put it shortly, the unmitigated power to choose any of at least two options.

I can find where we've been given liberty, but not freedom in the limited topic of volition.

As I already mentioned, see what I wrote in amorthe's "I sinned" thread. It's in my first post. Libertarian free will can be derived from scripture but it is not explicitely mentioned (similar to the trinity). When scripture speaks of freedom and liberty in christ, for all I know, that is something slightly different. I suspect libertarian freedom is involved, but I don't know that it can be decisively derived from that concept.

I used it to show how severely limited that freedom is, not deny it exists.

well you are limiting to the point where it is no longer the thing I was speaking of to begin with which calvinists view as pompous or idolotrous as the topic speaks of.

 

[Rick Otto]

Good points all, geebob.
I'll try & take the time to read that string.
Thanks.

 

[geebob]

ah, that's gracious of you.