The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Does God force men to sin?

I grew up in a non-Christian home and suffer from attention deficit(not officially diagnosed). I seem to have very strong Calvinist leanings, but having gotten such a late start, have much to learn. Arminians on other forums seem to despise Calvinism. The animosity between the two groups stresses me. Do Calvinists blame their sins on God? Does God control every single action of ours including what we have for breakfast?

My husband is tolerant of my beliefs but not interested in believing as I do. Our pastor is Arminian.

I joined this site because I'm hoping it's a safe place to learn about Calvinism. Thanks.

Lynda

First, a warm welcome to the Discussion Board.

Secondly, yes there is lots to learn but you are among good company. The main website of The Highway has 1600+ articles, books and sermons which should give you a good start to learn what Calvinism IS. If you are looking for something in particular and can't find it using the Search feature on the main page and in the "Calvinism and the Reformed Faith" section, just ask here. We can provide links. And of course, there is a wonderful community of folks here on the forums who can help as well as God has enabled us to do so.

Thirdly, the animosity is to be expected. We believe in a different God, a different Jesus, a different Holy Spirit, and a different Gospel than what Arminianism teaches. The chasm is wide and the history that divides stretches back since man was created. It is something you are going to have to accept but you will eventually come to understand.

Fourthly, re: "Do Calvinists blame their sins on God?" This is one of those typical and ridiculous charges that Arminians make against Calvinists, mainly due to their ignorance of what Calvinism teaches. But to answer your question, the answer is a resounding "NO!"... of course we don't blame God for our sins. We are sinners by nature and thus we sin freely and willfully. The guilt is all ours.

Fifthly, re: "Does God control every single action of ours including what we have for breakfast?" You betcha! We don't believe in "Deism". The God of the Bible is sovereign over all things. Not the tiniest molecule is free from His providence. There is nothing made nor anything that happens that God hasn't foreordained. All things are His and they exist for His magnificent glory.

In His grace,

Thank you!


Thank you. Most of what I've learned about Calvinism has come from online articles, particularly reformed.org.


This is why I'm here.


I didn't know this and it's going to be VERY hard for me to swallow. I have believed that modalists and any non-Trinitarian cults do not worship the one true God, but I thought all Trinitarians worshipped the same God.


This is where I get confused. If God controls everything and is stronger than Satan, why is He not not ultimately responsible for the existence of sin? I'm not posing this an argument against Calvinism, but, rather, I'm trying to understand it.


Now I'm more confused. I would have no hope at all if I were only a Deist. But I thought that God orchestrated only our spiritual lives and that we still made choices each day. This is probably where I blew it speaking to an Arminian.

So does all this mean that a person isn't saved until he becomes a Calvinist?

I'm on my way out the door... But, I'm planning on answering your further questions when I return, D.v. Of course there are others here too just as capable of doing so and perhaps they will also chime in.

God created Adam with the ability to sin and the ability to not sin but not with the ability to never sin. Adam was free to chose between obeying God or disobeying God. God didn't force Adam to sin... He decreed/foreordained that Adam would sin but Adam did it most freely. To help understand this truth I quoted Acts 4:26-28 which I will quote again the last two verses and I will add Acts 2:23:

Acts 2:23 (ASV) "him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:"

Acts 4:27-28 (ASV) "for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass."

These are probably the most revealing texts that one could find on this subject. Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says that all who were involved in the crucifixion of Christ did so by the eternal foreordination of God. Not only did God foreordain the crucifixion of Christ but every detail of it down to who would drive the nails into his hands and feet. AND, at the same time and equally true is the fact that these people did so most freely, without external compulsion, with no violation to their will. In short, they willingly and freely did what they did according to their own choice. God didn't force them to do this horrible act. The guilt is all their own. Thus God ordained the fall of Adam and Eve but they alone are culpable and guilty for their transgression.

Read through Romans 9 and pay careful attention first to the "questions" which Paul addresses concerning God's divine power and authority (right) to do what He does in the matter of salvation and then you will better understand Paul's answers.

For a great set of answers to this question of God being the alleged "Author of Sin" and others very similar to it, see here: Objections to the Doctrine of Predestination

Let's run with this idea to see how it works out, okay? But I must ask what it means that "God orchestrated only our spiritual lives"? As for God not (implied) orchestrating everything else then how does this everything occur... by chance? Is there no relationship between events that occur in life? If God has no control over the everyday choices of men then can there be anything that is certain? Question: How could the OT prophets be certain that what they prophesied would ever come to pass? Is God taken by surprise when you decide to take route 39N instead of 55S to reach a destination? Is God helplessly watching from His throne as men murder unborn babies? Was God simply a spectator during the holocaust? Was Christ crucified against God's will? Catching on here?

Men have the ability to make choices they being created in the image of God. But those choices are governed by their nature. AND, all the choices they make have all been ordained and are directed by God according to His eternal counsel, good pleasure and divine providence. (See the passages quoted in my first reply). Here are a few more:

[quote]Proverbs 19:21 (ASV) "There are many devices in a man's heart; But the counsel of Jehovah, that shall stand."

Proverbs 21:30 (ASV) "There is no wisdom nor understanding Nor counsel against Jehovah."

Psalms 37:23 (KJV) "The steps of a [good] man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way."

Proverbs 16:1 (ASV) "The plans of the heart belong to man; But the answer of the tongue is from Jehovah."

Proverbs 16:9 (ASV) "A man's heart deviseth his way; But Jehovah directeth his steps."

No! And not all who profess to be Calvinists are saved either. However, IF <---- an Arminian truly believes what he/she professes theologically/doctrinally, then at least at the time of that profession they cannot be saved. Sin is a terrible thing and one of the myriad results of sin is this occasional bifurcation between the head and the heart. The inconsistency can only be known by dialog, questions, probing and the person's answers. Unfortunately, the vast majority of professing Christians today on BOTH sides of the theological chasm are unregenerate. Right doctrine does NOT save... but one cannot be saved without holding to right doctrine.

In His grace,

I thought that God did not orchestrate what clothing we would wear on a certain day or what food we would eat.

I certainly do understand that my coming to Christ was not by chance because I am the only one of six children who has come to Christ.

I do appreciate all your time and effort to teach me.


I think I understand what you are saying. So is one Calvinist church more right than others?

And why would God's providence not be over all that He has created and decreed from all eternity? There is a phenomena called, "cause and effect". I'm sure you are familiar with this, right? As an example, aren't we all taught that there are always consequences for the choices we make? "Jane!", the mother says loudly to her daughter, "I'm warning you! "If you tease your brother one more time, you will be restricted to your room for a week!!!" Now, what if there was even one individual whose everyday actions God didn't foreordain and by His providence control? Let's presuppose that God wanted to keep you alive until the ripe old age of 95. And what if you were driving to the grocery store and this one lone "uncontrolled" individual decides to run a stop sign and hits you broadside at 50 mph and you are killed? Are you beginning to see the problem here when you have ANYTHING... One rogue molecule that isn't under God's sovereignty.

How could God bring you to Christ if you were killed before you were converted? Doesn't God have to have control over everything to make sure that all the means by which you were brought to Christ were sure? Again, I must direct you back to the crucifixion of Christ and how Peter describes this event in Acts 2:23; 3:18 and 4:27, 28. Is it even conceivable that all that was prophesied thousands of years beforehand could have actually happened exactly as God, through the prophets, said it would if God had not only ordained all things but providentially controlled every single thing? Peter says He did.

Especially in these recent times there is a great diversity within churches of all stripes; Calvinist and Arminian/semi-Pelagian. We are living in a time when heresy is being brought into the Church through its members, which is most always where heresy comes from; within vs. without. The Calvinist churches today are quickly forsaking their heritage and the doctrines that they even still profess to believe but deny in practice. The errors are in myriad forms, e.g., worldly contemporary worship, women in office, preaching another Gospel, denial of the "Five Solas" particularly "Sola Fide" (justification by faith alone) via NPP and Federal Vision, etc., etc., ad nauseam. No longer can one have confidence that all the congregations within a denomination are sound. ALL denominations are having problems to one degree or another. One has to examine each local assembly carefully in order to determine its soundness. This is one of the reasons for our having a Church Locator Forum to help people find a reasonably sound church.

But again ALL of this falling away has been eternally foreordained by God to serve His purpose in bringing the Church, the Bride of Christ to its final meeting with Him. He is purging the dross, sweeping the threshing floor as He has often done in history past. This too shouldn't be of any surprise for isn't this exactly what the apostle Paul and Peter warned would happen; even in their own day?

In His grace,

I get it.



I see.

"Thirdly, the animosity is to be expected. We believe in a different God, a different Jesus, a different Holy Spirit, and a different Gospel than what Arminianism teaches. The chasm is wide and the history that divides stretches back since man was created. It is something you are going to have to accept but you will eventually come to understand."

I am new to this discussion board, and am not trying to rude or confrontational. However, this comment couldn't be anything further from the truth.

First, animosity is to be expected between Calvinists and Arminians for the same reason that animosity is to be expected for any two groups that have differing perspectives.

Second, it is absolutely incorrect that Armininians and Calvinists "believe in a different God, a different Jesus, a different Holy Spirit . . ." Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in the same God, the same Jesus, the same Holy Spirit, and the same Gospel. What differs, however, between these two groups is their perspectives on certain doctrines e.g. election, predestination, etc. BUT <--- just because one's perspective is different does not mean that they are not worshipping the same God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc. And, I say this only because what you said makes it sound like Calvinist are worshipping the one true God, and Arminians are worshipping some god (emphasis on the lowercase "g"). This is not the case. Both groups believe in the God of Abraham and Isaac, the God who delivered the Israelites out of Egypt, and the God who sent His only Son down from Heaven to forgive us of our sins.

Thirdly, how could you say that the Arminians are preaching/teaching a different Gospel. The Gospel is the same on both fronts: God sent His Son to Earth to save mankind. Believe, and repent.

Fourthly, in all seriousness the chasm is not that wide between the Arminians and Calvinists; the more I study both positions the more I realize that the "chasm" is more like a small crack in the sidewalk. Both groups still believe the same Bible--it's not like one is reading/studying/believing the Bible, and the other the Koran. Nor has the debate between Armininians and Calvinists has not streatched back to before Man was created.

In conclusion, I appear to be defending the Arminian position, which is not what I am here to do, nor am I hear to defend the Calvinist position (I lean towards Calvinisim, but see the Arminian postion as well, and was such have been/am studying both positions). Lastly, I have said all this because some of the things that you have said makes it sound like you must be Calvinist if you are a true Christian because as you said they are "worshipping a differnt God, a different Jesus . . ." and that is not the case at all!

We have had this discussion a few times before on this site. Some of us would say that Calvinism is the gospel and thus, all non-Calvinists believe "another gospel."

The gospel is God's message about Jesus, not the "technical manual" on how and when His work was and is accomplished.

But that's not what our friends mean when they say "Calvinism is the Gospel." They are describing the difference between monergism and synergism - whether election and saving faith and conversion are some sort of collaboration between God and men as "equal partners" who come to an agreement, or whether salvation is solely and entirely God's merciful act upon those He has chosen, who are helpless to agree to anything, held heart and soul in bondage.

So the simpler question might be: Can a person who believes himself to be an "equal partner" with God in deciding his own fate truly be a follower of Jesus? Is such a person truly converted who can still deny the absolute sovereignty of God and relying solely upon His mercy and grace? Can a person be saved relying on his own merit (at least the merit of having had the good sense to choose Christ) as much as he does on God's grace?

Nope.

And in that sense, to be sure, Calvinism is what one must eventually come to in order for his faith to be in Christ alone, by grace alone.

First, welcome to the Discussion Board.

Just a reminder, this is a board that embraces and defends historic Christianity, aka: Calvinism which was rediscovered and came to life once again by God's mercy and providence through the Protestant Reformation. So, we can say accurately and historically, that true Christianity is that which is Protestant vs. all other religions. The doctrines of true Protestantism are antithetical to ALL other systems for no other reason than Protestantism holds to a monergistic salvation vs. a synergistic salvation.

Right off the starting block we are going to have to make a correction/clarification. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is decidedly NOT one of differing perspectives. Why?

1. By saying that the difference between the two systems is only one of perspective you have to deny absolute truth for something cannot be true and not true at the same time. One of the systems is assuredly in error for they are contradictory at their very foundation.
2. If one maintains that the difference is one of perspective then at best this means that both groups are grasped only part of the whole concerning the doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, faith, regeneration, the Fall, salvation, a world cosmology, etc., etc. But again this cannot be the case! (see #a)
3. To maintain that God's truth is simply one of perspective, that puts man as the arbitrator of all truth. Again, this cannot be true for truth is to be found external to man, i.e., it is revealed from God and God alone. (cf. Jh 14:6: 17:17 et al)

All you have done here is to affirm your thesis; both groups believe in the same God. You haven't offered any proof whatsoever to substantiate your proposition. What you have given are very general statements which even JW's and Mormons could affirm. If one reverts to reductionism as appears above, then there is little difference between many religions which we all know are antithetical to Christianity.

Again, you have succumbed to reductionism, aka: a "dumbed down gospel". There is an impassable chasm which separates the "gospel" of Arminianism and the Gospel of Calvinism. This antithesis was dealt with on a global scale in 1618-1619 at the great Synod of Dordt. The followers of Arminius submitted a remonstrance to the Church which consisted of five "grievances" concerning the doctrines held by all the churches of that day. The subjects of that remonstrance were the doctrine of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Fall, faith, regeneration, salvation, predestination/election, the atonement and perseverance. Much more was affected of course but these were the main areas of disagreement. The antagonists KNEW that the differences were not one of perspective but fundamental issues of biblical truth. The defenders of the Church concluded after many months of deliberation that Arminianism was not simply another perspective but gross error. In fact it was judged to be damnable heresy. Thus history stands against your current position.

Honestly, and I don't mean to be rude or insulting, but IF you seriously see the two systems as being very close to each other (like a small crack in the sidewalk), then you have failed to grasp what either system teaches.

Now, because of the nature of this topic to be able to do justice to it I suggest that it be broken down into small bits, as it were. I propose that I start a new thread for the discussion of 1) the doctrine of God; comparing what Arminianism (or current semi-Pelagianism) teaches vs. historic Protestantism (aka: Calvinism) teaches. I hope to see you participate in that first topic.

In His grace,

I certainly don't believe that I brought myself to God. I will thoughtfully consider what you have said.

Forgive me for not posting a speedy reply. I have been on vacation. I am running into those who hate determinism and I'm soooooooooo uneducated that I want to know what I should read to defend determinism(I hope I'm intelligent enough to understand what I read). Does Genesis 22:12 suggest that God is not ominiscient and not sovereign? Please remember that I'm not arguing against those attributes of God. I'm seeking information in order to defend the faith.

Oh, I'm interested! But I admit to not understanding all this as I barge into it. I do not believe that the two systems are really compatible and that makes it very difficult for me to attend my husband's Arminian church. My thoughts have been that one can be brought to Christ before understanding all of Calvinist beliefs or knowing that I had no say in my decision to follow Christ. Am I not a Christian? Or did I become a Christian when I realized that I didn't in anyway bring myself to Christ?

"Now I know," says the Lord, "that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son..." may seem to suggest that God didn't know Abraham's heart until this test.

The Apostle James helps clarify this a little in his epistle:


I think this shows the test had more to do with strengthening Abraham's faith and assurance in God than it did with providing God with an opportunity to "learn something He didn't know."

Great questions, by the way, and I'm glad you asked it!

Certainly one can be brought to Christ without the full instruction and official endorsement as a Certified Calvinist. A Reformed pastor friend of mine was brought to Christ as a result of Benny Hinn's false ministry! He knew nothing of sovereign grace (nor of the true gospel, really). But he did get a sense of his own unworthiness and helplessness, guilt before a Holy God, and reliance upon a Substitute, Christ, for the rescue of his soul.

Lynda,

Welcome back!

Unfortunately, even those who profess to be believers hate a God who is God, i.e., ALL THINGS have been determined by Him for His glory. Funny, that the Bible teaches that God "chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him, in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:" (Eph 1:4-6) That this all-determining God in love chose undeserving God-hating, rebellious, idolatrous, adulterous, sinful individuals to receive saving grace in Christ Jesus. What sane individual would not exalt His name and humble themselves before Him in praise and adoration for His mercy?

Anyway.... you want information, eh? Well, The Highway website has over 1600 books, articles and sermons for your perusal. On the subject of God's eternal predestination, there is an entire section here: Predestination. Also, on both the main page and in the "Calvinism and the Reformed Faith" section, there is a Search feature that is keyed to all the material on The Highway. HINT: if you are wanting to search for terms, enclose them in "quotes".

And, if you are looking for something specific and can't find it, just ask here on the board and I'm sure a link or more will be provided.

Thank you, Pilgrim. I added that to my Favorites.

Well, once again I see something wrong with Arminianism:

"...his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature."

http://the-highway.com/compare.html

The problem I see with that is this:

Acts 26:17-19 (King James Version)

17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

John 3
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

2 Timothy 2
25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

There in Second Timothy it says that God gives them repentance.

Am I right?

Indubitably!!

You will eventually come to the obvious conclusion that most all complaints about Calvinism stem from one's hatred of the doctrine of Total Depravity. The problem is that most cannot and will not take the insult that they are DEAD in sins, hate God by nature and love to do that which God hates, i.e., transgress the law or refuse to do what the law requires. Look at it this way... If man is as depraved as the Bible says he is, then the only possible way that anyone could be saved is by an Unconditional Election, by a Definite Atonement, actuated by an Irresistible Grace and by God's faithful Preservation of the Saints.

Now, the passages you quoted are very good. You should further consider the indictment Paul brings against first the Gentiles, then the Jews and then both together in Romans chapters 1-3 and then Eph 2:1-5. There simply is no way around it... there is no ABILITY in man to repent and believe because there is inherently no desire to do so. The heart is wicked (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Jer 17:7); the thinking [mind] is vain; the intellect is darkened; they are alienated from God; the heart is hardened [against God]; and the feeling [conscious] is of no effect! Eph 4:17-19

You go girl!!

In His grace,

As soon as I logout, I will read those.



Okey dokey.

I am a Catholic. I think that God knows what we will do, but never causes us to sin. He also wills all to come to repentance. Cf. 2 Pt 3:9. I think He also teaches us that we can have all confidence in our salvation, and even have confidence for others. "Love hopes all things" Cf. 1 Cor 13:7. We can also sacrifice for others' salvation. Cf. Col 1:24. The Diary of Faustina Kowalska, a private revelation, emphasizes the extreme horror of man's sin, together with the unimaginable love of God's mercy. I think we're all looking for that kind of dependency.

Yes, God knows what we will do because He has foreordained all that we will do.

Isaiah 46:9-10 (ASV) "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; [I am] God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not [yet] done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;" (cf. Isa 44:7; 45:21; Ps 33:11; 135:6; Dan 4:35; Rom 11:33-36; Eph 1:9-11)

2Peter 3:9 is speaking of God's will for those whom He has predestinated in Christ, aka: the elect. The CONTEXT demands that it be understood in this way. Here is the entire passage in context:

2 Peter 3:9 (KJV) "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

As you can see, the Lord is not willing that any of the us-ward (Grk: hemas us) perish, etc. So, the question needs to be asked, who are the "us-ward"? They are the "beloved of God" mentioned in the previous verses. It is the "to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:" (1:1). So, the right understanding of the text is that God will not send back His Son till the Body of Christ is complete, and that will not be till the ones whom He has elected to be saved in this dispensation shall have been brought to Him.

This really needs more clarification, please. And, I see nothing in Col 1:24 about the salvation of others, but rather Paul is speaking about the shared afflictions in the true Body of Christ as they are in union with Christ.

In His grace,

The verses you bring up are talking about God's sovereignty, which is something which passes our comprehension. But his sovereignty gives us freedom. Cf. Gen 1:27, Gal 5:1.

1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'"

God is infinitely good. He would never cause someone to do evil. "Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good!"

We can help to save others through Christ because he said:

1 I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men;

2 for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity.

3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.
(1 Tim 2:1etc).

1. God's sovereignty is REVEALED in Scripture so that we may comprehend Who He is, what He has done and what He will do to the extent which is written. We do not know all of what God's sovereignty entails and never will since we are finite and He is infinite. But again, God has revealed much about His sovereignty in Scripture.

2. In regard to the two verses referenced:

Genesis 1:27 (ASV) "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Galatians 5:1 (ASV) "For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage."

Neither of these passages speak of God's sovereignty, thus they are totally irrelevant and I am perplexed why you included them. The Genesis text simply refers to the unique nature of man vs animals in that God created man "in His image" (imago dei) and that both male and female possess the image of God.

The Galatian text is speaking of believers who have been set free from the curse and dominion of the law. Believers are united to Christ Who fulfilled all the requirements of the law and suffered in their room and stead being punished for them for the transgressions of that law. There is no reference whatsoever to God's sovereignty there.

Once again, you have thrown out some Bible verse which appears to have absolutely no relevancy to the topic at hand nor even to any point you are trying to make.

Are you trying to say that you believe that men are saved by a combination of God's grace AND the prayers of believers? And to carry this further by way of implication if this is the case, Without the prayers of the saints (living individuals on earth) sinners could not be saved?

Again, thanks in advance for your further clarification.

I would appreciate a bit more kindness, if possible. I think each of the verses I gave were relevant. Gen 1:27 and Gal 5:1 clearly indicate that God's sovereignty implies our sovereinty--free will--since we are made in the image of Christ, who is free.

Am I saying "that men are saved by a combination of God's grace AND the prayers of believers?". No. God's grace includes the free prayers of believers who, through the One Mediator, can intercede even for all men (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-5).....The original point being that God is infinitely good, and would never cause anyone to sin.

I fail to see where you have been shown anything but kindness.

I say again, the verses referenced are irrelevant to the topic and your own point. Secondly, your conclusion that "God's sovereignty implies our sovereignty--free will--since we are made in the image of Christ..." is a non sequitur. 1) There is but one Sovereign, even God and Christ as LORD. 2) Man has never had a "free will" either before the Fall and especially after the Fall. That man is a "free agent" is true, i.e., he is capable of making choices. But those choices are determined by man's nature. 3) Even God Himself is void of a "free will", i.e., God Almighty cannot choose to will nor do that which is contrary to His thrice holy nature. The point is that God does not have to force any man to sin because all men sin naturally due to the fact that they are born sinners. (cf. Ps 51:5; 58:3; Job 15:14-16; Jh 3:3-6; Rom 3:10-18; 5:12; Eph 2:3)

What do you mean by "intercede" in regard to the prayers of believers? When the One Mediator "intercedes" for His own, it is efficacious (cf. Heb 7:25; Rom 8:34 and the Holy Spirit as Intercessor on the behalf of true believers Rom 8:27). Thus the One Mediator's intercession is far different than the intercessory prayers of believers.

Hi Pilgrim,

Thank you.

We are partakers in God's sovereignty through Christ, because we are made "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pt 1:4; Cf. Gen 1:27.)

Thus we shouldn't make a dichotomy between Christ's intercession and the Church's intercession, since Scripture doesn't draw such a dichotomy. Cf. 1 Tim 2:1-5, Eph 1:22-23.

We agree that God is good, not forcing anyone to sin, and that "God wants everyone to be saved" Cf. 2 Tim 2:6.

Thanks, Patricius.

The Scriptures give us the right understanding of the "imago dei":

Ephesians 4:24 (ASV) "and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth."

Colossians 3:10 (ASV) "and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him:"

Both passages are sandwiched in sections where Paul is speaking about right living, i.e., living a holy and righteous life. There is no mention of being partakers of God's "sovereignty". There are no reputable theologians nor writers that I am aware of that hold to what you are saying.

Re: forcing man to sin... Yes, agreed that God does not and cannot do so...

Re: God wants everyone to be saved... We are decidedly not in agreement on this one. IF I have somehow communicated that this is my view, I apologize. If it was the case that God "wanted/desired" all men to be saved indiscriminately; i.e., every man, woman and child whoever was, is or will be, then de facto all would be infallibly saved. God's decretive will is sure.

Isaiah 43:10-13 (ASV) "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange [god] among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God. Yea, since the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who can hinder it?"

Isaiah 46:9-10 (ASV) "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; [I am] God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not [yet] done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;"

Daniel 4:35 (ASV) "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"

Romans 8:29-30 (ASV) "For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Thus, I must reject any and all views that embrace universalism.

Dear Pilgrim, Thank you.

Here is Eph 1:

22And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church,

23Which is his body, and the fulness of him who is filled all in all.

How could the Church be the fulness of Jesus without partaking of all God's nature? Cf. also Col 2:9.

In reverse order:

1. Re: Col 2:9 This is a propositional statement that affirms the full deity of Christ.

Colossians 2:9 (ASV) "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,"

That the two texts use the same word, "fulness" does not necessitate that they are synonymous nor related, for in fact, they are not related. The Colossians passage is focusing upon the full sufficiency of Christ in salvation vs. adding anything else to Him in order to be saved. The CONTEXT confirms that this understanding is true:

2. Re: Eph 1:22, 23 This passage is revealing a profound truth that Christ, as He is the Bridegroom, the Head of the Church is in some measure incomplete in that He is inextricably joined with the Church which He has purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). The emphasis is upon the relationship that exists uniquely and specifically between Christ and the Church. There is no implication whatsoever that the Church "shares in God's sovereignty". Again, the focus is upon Christ. The Church is "the fulness of Him (Christ)" as it is His bride. A wife cannot be said to share the intellect, morals, talents, etc., of her husband never mind his makeup (attributes).

Man has no sovereignty of his own. He is totally and wholly dependent upon God for all things, even the very breath he breathes. In fact, this entire idea that man possesses sovereignty was the original sin that preceded the Fall; both of man and of Satan. And so it is today that all men by nature strive for autonomy apart from God. One of its most pernicious expressions is to be found in the semi-Pelagian/Arminian and all other religions' insistence that man has a "free-will".

So no, man does not "share in God's sovereignty"!! He has not and cannot relinquish anything of His being or nature to the creature.

Isaiah 46:9 (ASV) "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; [I am] God, and there is none like me;"

Isaiah 48:11 (ASV) "For mine own sake, for mine own sake, will I do it; for how should [my name] be profaned? and my glory will I not give to another."

Hi Pilgrim,

Man can choose to reject God after being saved by God's kindness. Cf. Rom 11:22, Heb 10:26-29, 2 Pt 2:20-21, 1 Cor 9:27.

Those faint of heart should know that hope, being a theological virtue, has not limitations. We can hope for all things. Cf. 1 Cor 13.

Next, I do not speak of man's sovereignty apart from God, but only of man's partaking in God's sovereignty through God's choice. "He chose us."

Scripture says we have been made "partakers in the divine nature". Cf. 2 Pt 1:4. Some words for this one Nature are "sovereignty" or "power" or "love". "God is love." Cf. 1 Jn 4:8.

EPHESIANS 3:

14For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named,

16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his Spirit with might unto the inward man,

17That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity,

18You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth:

19To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.


Therefore we can be filled with the sovereignty of God. This is why we can intercede for all men though Christ.. Cf. 1 Tim 2:1-2etc. By making us partakers of the Divine Nature, God asks us to help Him draw all things to Himself.

Jn 12:

32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

This is an impossibility since God has eternally determined to save a specific number of people for Himself and infallibly secured their salvation in the sending of Christ Who made full atonement for them. We who believe the Scriptures to be inspired hold that there are no contradictions to be found in them. There are far too many passages which speak of the eternal security of TRUE believers to allow us to entertain such a notion. Let's take each one of these passages you have referenced (without any exegetical comment) to see what they actually teach.

1. Rom 11:22: Paul is speaking of two groups which is more than evident; Jews who were cut off due to their unbelief and Gentiles who at this time God had bestowed His goodness. The entire context is dealing with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church with a warning to them to not be presumptuous of that great blessing. What are we to make of the apodosis, "otherwise thou also shall be cut off"? What is not to be assumed is that any true individual believer can be cut off. Why? Because Paul had already established such in great passionate detail previously in the same letter, cf. 5:1, 8-10; 8:1, 29-39. See also Isa 43:1-3; 54:10; Jer 32:40; Matt 18:12-14; Jh 3:16; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 10:27-30; 17:11,12,15; 1Cor 1:7-9; 10:13; 2Cor 4:14, 17; Eph 1:5,13,14; 4:30; Col 3:3,4; 1Thess 5:23,24; 2Tim 4:18; Heb 9:12,15; 10:14; 12:28; 1Pet 1:3-5; 1Jh 2:19,25; 5:4,11-13,20; Jude 1,24,25.
2. Heb 10:26-29: The writer is addressing those who profess faith. This type of warning is found in myriad places in Scripture which warnings emphasize the individual's responsibility to continue in the faith they profess. There is, once again, no warrant to take this text as teaching that a TRUE believer can apostatize for it would contradict the myriad passages (noted above) that clearly teach otherwise. A professing believer is to persevere. One who fails to do so to the end will suffer damnation which therefore shows this person never had true faith.
3. 2Pet 2:20,21: Again, this text does not indicate it is being addressed to a TRUE believer but rather those who had heard the Gospel, had a change of mind/life and then turned back to their old ways, i.e. living in sin. Those who only have an external appearance of salvation do not have any real assurance of eternal life as they eventually show that they had no union with Christ. Cf. Matt 13:1-23; Mk 4:3-20; Lk 8:5-15.
4. 1Cor 9:27: Here Paul is warning those at Corinth specifically and to all who profess faith everywhere that the indolent and self-indulgent professing Christian has no reason to be assured of salvation. One cannot do as the Corinthians were want to do, i.e., they thought they could safely indulge themselves to the very edge of sin, while Paul considered himself as engaged in a life-struggle for his salvation; fighting the old man (remnants of the sin nature) within. He clearly states this battle in Romans 7:24,25. In short, one cannot expect to own an assurance of salvation when living a life of sin. Assurance is only given to those who fight the good fight against sin within and without.

You continue to make assertions without any evidence that such things are taught in Scripture. The phrase, "He chose us" is most always connected to Christ and unto salvation, e.g., "He chose us in Him [Christ]" (Eph 1:4; 2Thess 2:13; Deut 7:6,7; Ps 135:4; Isa 41:8; 42:1; Matt 11:25-27; Jh 10:16; Acts 13:48; Rom 9:23; 2Thess 2:13,14; 1Pet 2:9) There is NOTHING in any of these passages nor in the ones you keep referencing that speaks to believers "partaking in God's sovereignty"! God cannot divest Himself nor share His incommunicable attributes. This sounds more like Mormonism.

Please prove from Scripture that "Nature" is used as a synonym for "sovereignty".

Hi Pilgrim, Thank you. I'm trying to understand what you are saying... If the Scriptures say that "all the fulness of God" (Eph 3:19) excludes his attribute of sovereignty... Where is that stated? In God, Dan Schultz

There are some attributes of God which are not communicable to man. Surely you don't believe that any man shares God's omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, do you?

I've already stated that God's sovereignty is one of His incommunicable attributes. CovenantInBlood's response is very apropos for 'Omnipotence' is synonymous with sovereignty (authority and power). Thus it is impossible that any creature could share that attribute. All that God has created is subservient and totally dependent upon God and forever shall be.

Secondly, the text says "to (Grk: eis [to the end]) the fulness of God" and not "with the fulness of God"; a significant difference to be sure. A literal translation would be, "in order that you [pl] may be filled up to all the fulness of God."

Thirdly, thus the meaning of this phrase is, the entire moral excellence of God; the fulness and brightness of His spiritual perfections. It is plainly contrary to fact and experience to understand the term of the uncreated essence of God, for such an idea would involve us in a species of pantheism. Positively, Paul prays for strength, for the indwelling of Christ, for the unmovable foundation in love, for a comprehension of the size and vastness of the spiritual temple (the body of the believer in which God by the Spirit dwells, and for a knowledge of the love of Christ; and when such blessings are conferred and enjoyed, they are the means of bringing into the heart this Divine fulness. (cf. Col 2:19)

I think this is called dividing up God and adding to Scripture.

Peace in Christ, Patricius

How so? Are you willing to be consistent and suggest that man also possesses Omnipresence, Omniscience, Aseity, Immutability, Simplicity, Invisibility, etc. along with Omnipotence? Does not Scripture attribute to the infinite God certain qualities and attributes which man does not have from the simple fact that man is finite, a created being?

Every one of God's attributes is identical with His being: God's attributes do not differ from His essence nor from one another. He is what He has. When we speak about creatures, we distinguish variously between what they are and what they have; e.g., a human being remains a human being even though he has lost the image of God and has become a sinner. But when we speak about God, we must maintain that each of His attributes is identical with His being. God is all light, all mind, all wisdom, all logos, all spirit, etc.

I notice that you don't cite any Scripture in your argument that we should divide the nature of God and contradict the Scriprure."

"I pray...that you may be filled with the love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge, unto all the fulness of God." Eph 3:19.

"3) Even God Himself is void of a "free will", i.e., God Almighty cannot choose to will nor do that which is contrary to His thrice holy nature."

Pilgrim,

You make this point earlier on, and I wanted to ask you about it, now that it seems your previous discussion appears ended.

I think you are correct, in that God cannot do that which is contrary to his nature.

But I think God has free will. God has limitations, if you want to call them those (you might as well say a perpetually healthy man is limited in that he can't be sick), but can't you have free and still be limited in some way?

Mike

Mike,

What is needed, as most always, is to define terms. "Free-will" is a term that was brought to the table by Pelagians, semi-Pelagians and Arminians against what the Church has believed from day one. Just to give you a reference point on the antiquity of all this, Augustine and the Church of his day refuted and denounced the Pelagians in their denial of the noetic effects of the fall, aka: "Total Depravity". (cf. The Council of Orange) They insisted as do all three of these groups which encompass all religions, sects and cults outside of the historic Church, that man was never without the ability to choose, to some measure, either good or evil. Put another way, they insist that man is capable of choosing that which is contrary to his nature. The Scriptures and Calvinism in complete agreement teach that man is a "free-agent", i.e., he can make choices. But those choices are limited according to a man's nature. Thus, a sinner who is 'dead in trespasses and sins', i.e., a natural man who has inherited the corruption of nature due to Adam's transgression (1/2 of Original Sin; the other half being the imputed guilt), has no ability to choose that which is good, to love God, to turn from his sin and love righteousness. In this sense, fallen man can ONLY choose that which is evil because he loves sin.

So, God being thrice holy in His very nature is incapable of sinning, i.e., transgressing his own holy law. Therefore, God doesn't have a "free-will"; the ability to choose that which is contrary to His nature.

IF you are wanting to discuss this matter further, I would suggest that you start a new thread as it is a bit off topic... "Does God force men to sin?"

I notice that you continue to produce responses without substance.

1. That's a rather peculiar thing to charge me with given you don't accept the full authority of Scripture.

2. My response was one of reasonable logic to your premise to show it is nothing more than a tergiversation.

3. My question still stands and it would be helpful if you would simply answer it. And, if you would so desire, you could cite Scripture along with official pronouncements from Popes and/or the Magisterium and/or official Catholic documents.

QUESTION:
Are you willing to be consistent and suggest that man also possesses Omnipresence, Omniscience, Aseity, Immutability, Simplicity, Invisibility, etc. along with Omnipotence?

"Thus, a sinner who is 'dead in trespasses and sins', i.e., a natural man who has inherited the corruption of nature due to Adam's transgression (1/2 of Original Sin; the other half being the imputed guilt), has no ability to choose that which is good, to love God, to turn from his sin and love righteousness."

Is someone dead to sin unable to sin?

Mike

PS. Didn't Socrates address this in _Phaedrus_ w.r.t. chariot analogy? Free will is a philosophical concept - philosophy isn't constrained to the narrow world of Calvin and his intellectual adversaries.

Oh, and free will is in my Bible; what do you think a free will offering is?

No, one who is 'dead to sin' is able to sin and does. However, this is a decidedly different matter than one who is 'dead IN sin', cf: Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13; Rom 7:7-25. Being dead TO sin is a matter of sanctification vs. being dead IN sin is a matter of one's spiritual state, aka: unregenerate, natural, fallen, etc. In regeneration, as stated elsewhere, a new nature is created; a new disposition, spiritual life which determines the will (choices). Only in glorification is a person's nature wholly eradicated of any sinful tendencies. I would highly commend to you Thomas Boston's notable work, Human Nature in its Four-Fold State.

In the field of hermeneutics, this is classically known as a "Psycho-statistical-mean".

Again, I have already taken the time to point out that the phrase, "free-will" is a theological term foisted by all those outside of the Reformed camp to mean the ability of fallen men to choose that which is contrary to their nature. It has absolutely no reference nor relevance to a "free will offering". The proposal is so absurd I have to take your statement as comedic.

Some people wrote and spoke about free will prior to the Reformation, Pilgrim. It was not a theological term - it was a philosophical term.

I know many Calvinists tend to gravitate away from anything or anyone prior to the 16th century, aside from Augustine, but if you take a little tour of free will you'll probably have some good reading ahead of you. The dialogues of Plato are fascinating - I'm sure Calvin studied them closely when he earned his degree in Philosophy at the University of Paris.

Yes, you do appear to be in some kind of camp. But don't be afraid to explore the land around it. And to develop the analogy (I assume you're not actually in a real 'Reformed camp', though you never know these days), you may find the cities around you are older than your camp. In other words, free will wasn't foisted upon the Reformed tradition.

Quite the opposite, predestination was foisted upon the free will tradition. To be fair, I think it was a matter of the determinist position finding new friends in religion and politics.

Now, I know, Augustine wrote about what we call predestination in the 4th century. But you have to wonder why no one else, as far as I can tell, wrote about it until the 16th.

We've compared Calvin to CS Lewis. I'd like to draw an even clearer comparison between Augustine and Chrysostom. Chrysostom advocated free will.

Do you know much about Chrysostom? I'll provide some background if you need it, but suffice to say he believed in free will, and preached as much.

I'm sorry, but what is so comedic about taking scripture seriously? There was a free will offering. Why did they call it that?

Mike

"No, one who is 'dead to sin' is able to sin and does. However, this is a decidedly different matter than one who is 'dead IN sin', cf: Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13; Rom 7:7-25. Being dead TO sin is a matter of sanctification vs. being dead IN sin is a matter of one's spiritual state, aka: unregenerate, natural, fallen, etc."

If I ask you why someone who is "dead in sin" cannot respond the gospel, you will say it is because they are "dead." And dead people don't respond. It has nothing to do with the word "in".

If I tell you that someone "dead to sin" can no longer sin, you argue that they can.

On one hand, you take "dead" to mean inability.

On the other, you take it to mean something other than inability.

I'll add another word to the list of duplicitous concepts, unless you'd like to explain how "dead" can mean two things.

Mike

Yeh know, Mike... you are constantly making erroneous assumptions about Scripture, God, Calvin, Calvinism, and now me. That's not comedic... it's pitiable.

I am more than familiar with writings other than those of Reformed/Calvinistic authors. Yes, I have read and studied Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Percolates, et al Greek philosophers. I have read a plethora of works written by non-Reformed theologians.

FYI, Thomas Aquinas wrote on predestination as well, so I guess that makes 2 of them? However, if I'm not mistaken there are some biblical writers, inspired by God the Spirit who wrote on the subject of predestination, election, foreordination, etc. And to be honest, I unfortunately have spent the majority of my time reading those writings rather than Plato or C.S. Lewis.

BTW, as pointed out to you previously, the CHURCH addressed the matter of "free-will" in 529 AD at the Council of Orange. Since Augustine died on August 28, 430, one must conclude that there were many more of the same mind other than him, eh?

Historically, issues aren't generally written about ecclesiastically unless there is a dispute about what the Church holds to be true, e.g., Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, Chalcedon, Council of Orange, the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt and many of the other major Confessions and Catechisms were written to combat errors. In the early years, it was difficult to circulate documents as well... in case you aren't aware, they didn't have computers, the Internet, nor even USPS.

Re: "free will offering"... I have already commented on that phrase and compared it to the theological phrase "free-will".

Forgive me, I thought you were ignoring my mention of Socratic dialogues. Percolates, ha that's a good one?.....

You're a smart guy, and I'm sure you've read it all. You don't have to prove anything to me, I'm glad you're taking the time to answer my questions.

But could you address my questions about the word "dead"?

MikeL,

I hope you'll take the time to read a post that I wrote in one of the Open Forum threads. (I can't remember the title, but I addressed the post to you.)

As for your historical claims: they are mistaken. Predestination was discussed quite often by medieval philosophers and theologians. For instance, Thomas Bradwardine wrote a book an enormous (yet untranslated) volume in which he defends the doctrine of predestination against "Pelagians" in the 14th centuries. Scholars are interested in this work because it got Bradwardine promoted to being an archbishop of Canterbury, and it is of great historical interest who these "Pelagians" are. (The suspicion is that Ockham is one of them! )

Aquinas also defended the doctrine of predestination in several places, including his biblical commentaries and the Summa Theologica. See the first part, question 23: "Of Predestination". In that question he defends eight theses:

1) Men are predestined by God. (Article 1)
2) Predestination does not place anything in the predestined. (Article 2)
3) God does reprobate men. (Article 3)
4) The predestined are chosen by God. (Article 4)
5) The Foreknowledge of merits is not the cause of predestination. (Article 5)
6) Predestination is certain. (Article 6)
7) The number of predestined individuals is certain and unchangeable. (Article 7)
8) Predestination can be furthered by the prayers of the saints. (Article 8)

In this question, Aquinas argues that God chooses some men and doesn't choose others in a way that doesn't depend on anything they or anyone else does; furthermore, the number of elect is immutable, and no one can add to it or take away from it. Nevertheless, he contends, prayer and other "means of grace" are still to be used (e.g., preaching).

In fact, predestination was a major philosophical and theological theme of the medieval period. The position that God predestined people was so widespread, in fact, that just about every major scholastic writer had something to say about it. In my office alone, I have works in which predestination is discussed by Abelard, Ockham, Aquinas, and Bradwardine, and they just scratch the surface of medievals who have discussed the doctrine. (NOTE: they were not all in agreement with Aquinas's position. Bradwardine and Aquinas were effectively Calvinists. Ockham not so much, and Abelard--from what I know of him--is still unclear to me.) I say all of this just to point out that the world wasn't turned upside down by the reformers. Instead, they were involved in ongoing scholastic debates, and they were taking a side endorsed by earlier important, orthodox theologians on this doctrine.

Enough of that, though. I appreciate the fact that you are participating in the forum.

Cheers,
John P.

I'm not sure I entirely understand that last sentence (the red highlight.) Could you maybe expound upon it a bit for my benefit? Thanks!

Hi John,

Thanks for the information on Aquinas. Though I'm not sure where I argued that predestination was a foreign concept to Aquinas? I looked through the threads, and found where I argued that free will was discussed by many people before the Reformation. Aquinas would count there, of course.

Aquinas may have written things that look very Calvinist - but make no mistake, he believed in free will. In fact, he wrote that free will was essential for the possibility of moral philosophy. And I don't mean to offend anyone here, but Aquinas actually wrote that it was very stupid to not believe in free will.

We could argue about what Aquinas said on the subject, but I think we agree that the subject existed before the Reformation. That, along with the premise that it arose in mainly philosopical circles, was my point. It wasn't as if free will were invented to oppose Calvinism, or predestination for that matter.

Wouldn't you say it's quite natural to believe that we have free will, and that only by considerable effort can you begin to prove the opposite?

Mike

There is a difference between teaching/preaching on predestination, and teaching/preaching that we have no free will. There is no question that predestination was a topic before Calvin. It was a topic before Augustine. Forms of the word are used in the Bible, for heaven's sake.

But did anyone of this list teach/preach that free will didn't exist?

I can eliminate one of those names right now: Aquinas thought we had free will.

But thank you for the list. I'll research them myself. Up until this point, I've only heard of Gottschalk.

Mike

MikeL,

I believe it is very natural to believe we have free will because, in fact, we have free will. The extent of our freedom is the question, no? I wrote a post to you on a thread in the Open Forum that explains what I mean by free will. I hope you'll read and respond to it.

Also, I mentioned medieval thinkers because you (mistakenly?) typed that predestination was not discussed between Augustine and the reformation--at least not that you knew.

Finally, Aquinas's view of the will is that the will of necessity does whatever the intellect presents to it as "good". That is, Aquinas claims humans always choose to do whatever it is that their intellect presents to them as the best at a given moment. Choosing sin is natural, then, insofar as our minds are corrupted and the sinner treats the bad as "good", and so chooses it of necessity. So, the intellect causes (through final causation rather than efficient causation) the will to choose what it chooses. And, yes, Aquinas considers this a free will. But you're right: we shouldn't simply debate what Aquinas said. I just want to make sure you understand that he doesn't endorse the kind of view you are suggesting regarding free will.

(Note: You are endorsing what is called an "agent causal" view of free will. Timothy O'Connor at Indiana University--Bloomington defends the most respected version of this view. It is notoriously difficult to defend, however, because nothing *makes* the will choose what it chooses. If nothing *makes* the will choose what it chooses, it appears as though our decisions are random. Even the strongest defenders of libertarian free will in academic philosophy think this is the most serious threat to their position, and they don't want to endorse a position that claims random acts of choosing are better than determined ones. Which would you prefer? Your actions to be left up to chance or up to deterministic causes? It is a tough choice, no? So the best explanations of free will attempt to eliminate chancy choosings while maximizing agent control. Interestingly, some of these accounts of free will are compatible with the Calvinist understanding of humans.)

Take care,
John

I think we should throw out the term 'free will' all together.

Let's focus on grace...most Christians believe Jesus died on the cross to open a way unto salvation....

but that way is a narrow way, not a broad way....

You most probably believe that Jesus' death and ressurrection is all the grace we need....now it is simply our choice to believe (accept or reject).

I don't want to get into a scriptual debate but the T in TULIP is the starting point for the Reformed tradition and the reason why everyone will reject the Savior without the work of the Spirit in which one is Born Again unto life. I believe by experience that this is definitely the case. I always believed, but I never truely repented, I never experienced a sorrow over sin, I never truly needed Jesus before. Now I experience this on a daily basis...you may experience this too, and I'm sure when you pray you understand that without the Lord you can do nothing. Because we are the dependent variable that require saving grace unto salvation....

Hi Newman,

I hope these quotes explain where I'm coming from....

AC,

Why throw at the expression 'free will' altogether when it captures a real part of our experience, namely, that we are not coerced but are in some very real sense the source of our actions? Consider the following questions:

Are you morally responsible for a murder that your friend committed?

Are you morally responsible for non-culpably, accidentally tripping and knocking a child off a cliff?

If a scientist, unbeknownst to you, connected electrodes to your brain and made you "choose" to kill someone, are you morally responsible for the murder? Imagine that the scientist connected these in a way where you couldn't help but choose what he made you choose.

Now, no one with their head on straight thinks that you (or whoever) are morally responsible for these actions. Why not? Because we are only morally responsible for actions if they are in some real sense under our control. If someone takes your daughter's arm and knocks it into a lamp, thus breaking it, you don't blame your daughter. Why not? Because breaking the lamp wasn't under her control--she didn't do the action. She was coerced and not free. The action wasn't hers.

As English language users, we need to recognize that the expression we use to talk about cases like these is 'free will', and 'free will' refers to a very real part of our experience and practices of morally evaluating ourselves and others--even if we are Calvinists. If you accidentally knock a child off a cliff, you aren't responsible because you didn't freely choose to knock the child off the cliff. If you kill someone because a mad scientist kidnapped you and left you no choice (through electrodes, etc.), you aren't responsible for the killing because you didn't freely choose to kill the person. Free choices, or manifestations of 'free will', are necessary for moral responsibility for actions.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we don't hold people responsible for actions if their character wasn't so bad that they couldn't have done what was right. If a moral delinquent can't help but view pornography because he is addicted, his wife won't--and shouldn't--excuse him for it. He is blameworthy. He should have done otherwise than he did; no one coerced him into viewing pornography; he is a human capable of choosing to turn his computer off and pray, etc. As far as his character is concerned, however, he couldn't help but view the pornography because he needed God's special grace to give him a new character first. All this suggests, though, is this: As English users use the expression 'free will', it is compatible with being responsible for actions that our character makes necessary.

(NOTE: I did not say that free choices are necessary in order for someone to be morally responsible for their moral character. Anyone who believes in original sin, including MikeL I presume, must admit that we can be morally responsible for our moral character even if our character wasn't up to us.)

Regards,
John

I agree that the term "free-will" should and must be retained for the following reasons:

1. Because the term "free-will" is most always understood as defined by semi-Pelagians/Arminians, sects, cults, etc. It is "their" term and one which they insist exists; by their own definition. Thus it is best to retain it as it aids in understanding all that follows from the premise that man has a "free-will".

2. Our forefathers didn't generally use the term because of above, due to its fallacious meaning, but rather chose to use the term "free-agent/agency" when referring to man's moral ability and responsibility.

However,

I disagree that we as Calvinists should adopt the term "free-will" as part of our system as it leads to more than a little confusion. Let the semi-Pelagians/Arminians keep their term and let us use the more biblical phrase of "free-agency". The Canons of Dordt was clear that it did not accept the term "free-will" as a biblical truth to describe man. In short, none of the Reformed articles adopted the phrase to describe its system of doctrine. I believe they were wise in doing so over many centuries.