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

"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.

I think we're more or less on the same page, Pilgrim. While I have found that it is important to clearly state what I mean when I say humans have 'free will', I have also found that saying "we don't have free will" leads to other confusions and unnecessary stumbling blocks to people like MikeL. As a result, whether we use the expressions 'free will' or 'free agency', we need to be careful to explain what we mean by the expressions.

Incidentally, a 'free agent' and a 'free will' are different things. An 'agent' is an actor or doer. The way it is ordinarily used in theological discussion, the agent is a person. A 'will' is a cognitive faculty whereby an agent chooses he chooses. When we say that someone is a 'free agent', we generally mean that the agent 'chooses without external coercion,' which seems to entail free will in the sense that the agent must have a cognitive faculty of choosing in order to be a free agent. So, while 'free agent' and 'free will' have different meanings, being a 'free agent' seems to entail possessing a 'free will' in the above sense.(I'm adding this paragraph more more MikeL than for you, Pilgrim.)

Kind Regards,
John