“Why did you believe the gospel, but your friend did not? Are you wiser or smarter or more spiritual or better trained or more humble?”
This is typically one of the first questions a Calvinist will ask a non-Calvinist when attempting to convince them of their doctrine.[1] In fact, when I was a Calvinist, I used this argument more often than any other, and it was quite effective. However, I have come to believe there are at least four significant problems with this line of argumentation:
1) Question Begging Fallacy:
As we have discussed HERE, this is a game of question begging because it presumes a deterministic answer is required. It is tantamount to asking, “What determined the response of you and your friend?” As if something or someone other than the responsible agents themselves made the determination. The question presumes determinism is true and that libertarian free will (self-determination) is not possible. [2]
I believe that the cause of a choice is the chooser (or the cause of a determination is the determiner) and accept the mystery associated with the functioning of that free will in making its own determinations.[3] Now, Calvinists will often challenge my appeal to mystery at this point as if it is a weakness unique to my libertarian worldview. This is a very shortsighted argument, however, which will be made abundantly clear in the next point.
2) Calvinists Ultimately Appeal to the Same Mystery:
While the Calvinist may feel he has the “upper hand” when asking about the “decisive factor” in man’s choice to reject God’s words, the role reverses quite dramatically when the conversation shifts to man’s first choice to reject God’s words. Whether discussing Satan’s first act of rebellion or Adam’s first choice to sin, it becomes quite evident that the Calvinist has painted himself into a corner by denying libertarian free will.
While on the one hand arguing that mankind will always act in accordance with his nature (assuming the nature could not be libertarianly free, mind you), the Calvinist has no rational answer as to why Adam (or Lucifer) chose to rebel. [4] For instance, John Piper openly admits:
How God freely hardens and yet preserves human accountability we are not explicitly told. It is the same mystery as how the first sin entered the universe. How does a sinful disposition arise in a good heart? The Bible does not tell us.”[5]
And RC Sproul similarly teaches,
“But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.”[6]
As you can clearly see, the Calvinist has just “kicked the can down the road,” so to speak, when it comes to appealing to the mystery of free moral will.[7] They eventually appeal to the same mystery that we do, all the while thinking they are taking the higher moral ground by giving God all the credit for the Christian’s choice to repent and trust in Christ. In reality, however, by not accepting the mystery of man’s free will, the Calvinist has created a new mystery that is simply not afforded by the text of scripture.
This problem is made evident by turning the question around and asking this of the Calvinist:
Why has your lost friend continued to hate and reject God?
Most Calvinists do not want to admit that the reprobate of their system ultimately hates and rejects God because God first hated and rejected them. Calvinists would rather focus on the elect who are saved by deterministic means while ignoring the inevitable conclusions about the non-elect who remain damned for the same deterministic reason. In my opinion, this is a dilemma unique to their worldview, not a tension created by the teachings of scripture.
So, the Calvinist rejects the mystery of libertarian freedom only to adopt another even more difficult mystery. One that arguably brings into question the holiness, righteousness and trustworthiness of our God — namely the suggestion that God is implicit in the determination of moral evil, as evidenced by John Calvin’s own teachings:
“…how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission…It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them…Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.”[8]
Which mystery is more difficult to swallow? One that seemingly suggests mankind might have some part to play in reconciliation (the bringing together of two parties) or the one that suggests God is the author of evil (that which divided to two parties to begin with)? More importantly, which of these mysteries does the Bible actually afford? (Listen to THIS PODCAST to better understand why a defense of free will is actually a defense of God’s Holiness, not merely an appeal to mystery.)
3) Better by Choice or Divine Decree is Still Better:
Calvinists seem to think there is something morally wrong with admitting that a believer is better than an unbeliever. Of course it is better to believe than it is to “trade the truth of God in for lies.” Whether one believes because they were sovereignly made to do so or simply given the ability to do so freely does not change the fact that believers are doing something “better.” But, as we will discover in the next point, better does not mean worthy of salvation. So, even if the non-Calvinist were to say, “Yes, I’m more humble or smarter,” he would ultimately be saying the exact same thing a Calvinist has to say. The only difference would be that an unbeliever could rightly say to the Calvinist, “How arrogant of you to think that God made you more humble or smarter,” whereas if they said that to the non-Calvinist, we could rightly answer, “No he didn’t, you have no such excuse. You have just as much ability to humble yourself and understand the gospel as I have.”
We (non-Calvinist) are too often accused that we could/would boast in our salvation because we affirm that it is our responsibility to freely respond in faith to the gracious Holy Spirit wrought gospel appeal.
Is this really boast worthy?
We are the ones who teach that anyone can believe the gospel. Why would we boast in doing something anyone is able to do?
It’s the Calvinists who believe this ability is uniquely given to them and not most people. It makes much more sense for a Calvinist to boast in an ability granted to him that has been withheld from most others.
A great singer, for example, is a given a rare gift from birth and can often become proud or boastful due to that unique gift. But if everyone was born able sing that well whenever they wanted, then boasting in that ability would not make any sense. Thus, Calvinism leaves more room for boasting than does our soteriological perspective. (Though I don’t believe true Christians from either soteriological system would boast in such things: SEE HERE)
This speaks to the biblical teaching on the attainability of goodness or righteousness, which we will discuss in the next point.
4) A Decision Does Not Merit Salvation:
What is the underlying motivation for asking the question, “Why you and not another?” The implication seems to be that one who makes the libertarianly free decision to accept the gospel appeal is meriting or more deserving of salvation? As if the decision to repent somehow earns or merits one’s forgiveness.
Think of it this way. Did the prodigal son earn, merit or in any way deserve the reception of his father on the basis that he humbly returned home? Of course not. He deserved to be punished, not rewarded. The acceptance of his father was a choice of the father alone and it was ALL OF GRACE. The father did not have to forgive, restore and throw a party for his son on the basis that he chose to come home. That was the father’s doing.
Humiliation and brokenness is not considered “better” or “praiseworthy” and it certainly is not inherently valuable. In fact, one could argue that it was weak and pitiful of the son to return home and beg his daddy for a job instead of working his own way out of that pig sty. The only thing that makes this quality “desirable” is that God has chosen to grace those who humble themselves, something He is in no way obligated to do (Is. 66:2). God gives grace to the humble not because a humble response deserves salvation, but because He is gracious.
Calvinists often conflate man’s choice to confess with God’s choice to forgive while labeling it all “salvation.” They go on to convincingly argue that God is “sovereign over salvation” which actually means “God is as much in control over His own choice to forgive as He is over man’s choice to confess in faith.” It’s difficult to argue with someone who is making the case that God is “in control of salvation” and is “the One who gets all credit for salvation,” but that difficulty only exists due to the conflating of man’s responsibility to believe/confess with God’s gracious choice to save whosoever does so. Of course Salvation is all of God, but that is distinct from man’s responsibility to humbly trust in Him for salvation.
We all affirm that Salvation belongs to the Lord, but that does not mean sin and the responsibility to repent from sin does not belong to the sinner.
Clearly scripture calls us to humility and there is nothing which suggests we cannot respond in humility when confronted by the powerful clear revelation of God’s convicting life-giving truth through the law and the gospel. Consider what our Lord taught us in Luke 18:10-14
“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Did the tax collector deserve to go home justified because of his humble admission of guilt? Of course not. If that were so, then his confession would have merited his salvation and there would be no reason for Christ’s death to atone for his sin. He went home justified because of God’s grace and provision alone! Maintaining man’s libertarianly free responsibility to repent and believe does not negate the truth that salvation is completely and totally of God alone.
Throughout the scriptures we see examples of God “finding favor” in believing individuals (Job, Enoch, Noah, Abram, etc), but these men, like all of humanity, still fell short of God’s glory and were unrighteous according to the demands of God’s law. They needed a savior. They needed redemption and reconciliation. Even those who believe the truth of God’s revelation deserve eternal punishment for their sin.
What must be understood is that no one was righteous according to the demands of the law. However, that does NOT mean that all people are unable to believe God’s revealed truth so as to be credited as righteous by God’s grace. Paul taught that no one was righteous in Romans 3, yet he turns around and declares in the very next chapter that, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3).
How can that be? Has Paul contradicted himself? First he declares that no one is righteous and then he tells us that Abraham was righteous? Which is it?
Paul is drawing the distinction between righteousness by works (Rm. 3:10-11) and righteousness by grace through faith (Rm. 3:21-24). The former is unattainable but the latter has always been very much attainable by anyone, which again, is why ALL ARE “WITHOUT EXCUSE!” (Rm. 1:20)
God can show mercy on whom ever he wants to show mercy! We happen to know, based on Biblical revelation, that God wants to show mercy to those who humbly repent in faith, which is man’s responsibility not God’s!
If you wait on God to effectually humble you, it will be too late.
1 Peter 5:5-6: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
Isaiah 66:2: “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word.
James 4:10: “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.”
2 Kings 22:19: “Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people—that they would become a curse and be laid waste—and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord.”
2 Chronicles 12:7: When the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, this word of the Lord came to Shemaiah: “Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak.
2 Chronicles 12:12: Because Rehoboam humbled himself, the Lord’s anger turned from him, and he was not totally destroyed.
Psalm 18:27: You save the humble but bring low those whose eyes are haughty.
Psalm 25:9: He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way.
Psalm 147:6: The Lord sustains the humble but casts the wicked to the ground.
Proverbs 3:34: He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed.
Zephaniah 2:3: Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the Lord’s anger.
Matthew 18:4: Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:3: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 23:12: For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Luke 1:52: He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.
Luke 14:11: For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Luke 18:14: “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
James 4:6: But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”
The Bible Brodown guys discuss this question HERE in a great podcast.
[1] John Piper said, “More specifically, I rarely meet Christians who want to take credit for their conversion. There is something about true grace in the believer’s heart that makes us want to give all the glory to God. So, for example, if I ask a believer how he will answer Jesus’s question at the last judgment, “Why did you believe on me, when you heard the gospel, but your friends didn’t, when they heard it?” very few believers answer that question by saying: “Because I was wiser or smarter or more spiritual or better trained or more humble.” Most of us feel instinctively that we should glorify God’s grace by saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” In other words, we know intuitively that God’s grace was decisive in our conversion. That is what we mean by irresistible grace.” (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Grace)
[2] Libertarian Free Will is “the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.” See: https://soteriology101.com/2016/05/11/philosophical-reflections-on-free-will/
[3] Question begging is the logical fallacy of presuming true the very argument up for debate. By asking what determined a man’s choice, the questioner is presuming someone or something other than that man made the determination, thus presuming true the foundation for deterministic logic (i.e. “a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws [or Divine decree].” Merriam-Webster Dictionary). While a determiner may state reasons or influential factors for his or her own determination (i.e. I chose to overeat because it tastes so good) that does not mean the factors listed effectually caused the determination (i.e. the taste of food determined the agent’s choice to overeat). The agent alone made the determination based on the factors taken into consideration and deliberated upon. To presume without proof that something or someone outside the agent himself made the determination (i.e. was the “decisive factor”) is question begging.
[4] On the one hand, Calvinists argue that mankind always chooses according to their greatest inclination which is ultimately determined by their God given nature, yet on the other hand they affirm that Adam “was perfectly free from any corruptions or sinful inclinations,” and that he “had no sinful inclinations to hurry him on to sin; he did it of his own free and mere choice” Jonathan Edwards, ‘All God’s Methods Are Most Reasonable’, in Sermons and Discourses: 1723-1729, ed. by Kenneth P. Minkema, Works 14 (1997): 168.)
How does the affirmation of Adam’s freedom to sin or refrain from sin not violate the Calvinists own definition of human will and choice? For Adam to choose to sin he must violate the law of his own nature, as defined by the Calvinistic systematic.
[5]John Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/the-hardening-of-pharaoh-and-the-hope-of-the-world))
[6] RC Sproul, Chosen By God, p.31
[8] John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11
Leighton,
This was a sound and excellent argument and frankly one that I think reduces the Calvin/non-Calvin debate to its most divided root cause and topic of importance. The nature of God’s Character. I say this because I absolutely agree with you that Humility is a characteristic that man has choice over. Plenty of places you cited mention the emphasis of Man (not God) needing to humble himself. Not safe himself either for having humbled himself. But the choice of humbling one’s self strikes to a very important element that also speaks to the nature of God and this debate.
All the characteristics of God are important in cohesively understanding who he is, as best we can this side of eternity that is.
But the observation i have made of Calvinists is that they hold the “Holiness” virtue of God’s character over and against any of his other characters. Particularly, even his “loving” nature. And this is where I find the debate needed acknowledgment and careful introspection.
God is holy, but “God is Love” (1John). When it comes to God doing what mysterious works he does in the heart of the hardened or in the heart of the called he must be doing it on the basis of Love as it is the nature of who he is. But that brings up a very specific nuance when it comes to the individual responding to the appeal to repent. Love from scriptures (1Corinthians, Philemon and sooo many places elsewhere) strongly defines itself as not being rude, not seeking self, not being something that obligatorily forces itself on others, or demands itself. Onesimus’s free return of philemon, giving your gifts to God not out of grudging complain or obligatorily but out of a cheerful and self-donating heart. one could go on and on.
I’m sure you systematic guys are likely to feed off what I just wrote like piranha with contending zeal, but my simple point is that if God is loving, If he desire’s us to choose him freely (because he is NOT nervously pacing heaven alone and desperately needing validation) then man’s desire to say I am not able to do anything about my condition but I acknowledge my utter sin, and I autonomously and self-donatedly give you myself is NOT a thing a person has any boast in. To boast about being Humble actually denies the nature about what humility is in the first place. What’s the permutation of this for the Calvinist that threatens him…?
Is it something like this kind of dialogue, “Hey dude, how did you come to Christ? OH man let me tell you. I just took a look at my miserable life and how utterly empty, self-centered, ungoverned, basically evil I was and I realized you know I just need to humble myself and if I do the hard work of humbling myself then I know God is required to deservingly accept me.” Ummm news flash that was just a description of self-righteousness regardless of how people use phrasing. Instead that description sounds a lot like the Pharisee scripture noted above.
I find it funny that Calvinist don’t have an answer about Adam’s choice to sin though he was perfectly sinless in nature and will. Here’s a simple answer. God made man able to choose or reject him because the “insoluble nature of love is distinct in that it is the other’s CHOICE FREELY to walk in harmony with another or not”. God wasn’t surprised that Adam would sin either, but he had to make him able to freely choose to want to serve and love God back. If he made Adam incapable of having a choice he would have been deterministically ordered to never sin. Basically a robot. Which honestly Calvinist doctrine reduces its arguments to this base view anyway.
But if this is the case then why does anyone argue about any of this stuff. It seriously would be a ridiculous endeavor. What I’m saying is, if everything is deterministic with no choice of self donation to a creator mattering because ultimately God is only working strangely, unknowingly and secretively to have force his hand then fate of all kinds is God’s actual secretive doing. So sin is as much his choice, in fact all his choice then it is any of ours. Of course I don’t believe this but that’s the logic of Hyper Calvinism.
Also, here is really a simple thing that I seriously ask everyone of you guys reading this. Look at the person of Jesus Christ. If God so “loved” the world that he gave his son to save us.. Do any of you seriously see that form, action and demeanor of Love in Jesus’s every choice and motive ever dominating others hearts and demanding others because he was desparate for his “holiness” to be respected, bowed to or regarded as an imperative requirement. NO.
In fact the argument that Calvinists have that justify why holiness matters the most is because God deserves if not demands his Glory. But what is God’s idea of Glory? He doesn’t need man’s accolades to be Glorious. Here is Glory for you. Imagine the Creator of the universe although deserving acknowledgment for his unmatched splendor of goodness, beauty and charity becoming in nature the very thing he created in a gentle kind appeal to accept him for having made us with autonomy to reject him with our “free will”. For after all if he didn’t make us with free will we would neither reject him, but we also would neither respond to him freely. Ok so what does this mean???
Well here is the motive of God’s heart. The word says “he has consigned all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all”. I think God wanted the experience of free will being quite beautiful from the position of man seeing how far choice had led him from relationship with him. You can’t know necessarily how Good a thing is without contrast and perhaps having lost that thing. There is more Glory in the nature of God by the distance he will travel to choose us when we reject him then if he made us never to freely desire him back. He must savor and value the choice the believer has when they finally give themselves away, not in boasting but in nature being made in the same image as their creator saying receive me I am lost. But it is the sinner who confesses it, woo’ed him or her, made unimaginable means of circumstance to reach out to them. They must give themselves over, freely, for Love is only respected as love at all if it is freely given.
in the last sentence I meant to say,”Whether it was God who Woo’ed him or her……
Hi David
I really appreciated this post.
And I also agree with you how-be-it in a slightly different way on one point you made.
You gave this insightful observation:
-quote:
“But the observation i have made of Calvinists is that they hold the “Holiness” virtue of God’s character over and against any of his other characters.”
For me its not actually Holiness – but Sovereignty – that Calvinists place at the top of their totem-pole of divine attributes.
Blessings and thanks for your post!
Indeed…. good eye br.d.
If it were Holiness above all else they would not be constantly implying that God is the author of all things—even sin, rape, torture, etc. That aint very holy.
It is indeed His Power that they emphasize, dealt with in their personal definition of sovereignty. But power makes sense and Calvin wielded it mercilessly. River-dunking or stake-burning anyone? So that fits perfectly for them.
In Salvation the Gospel message uses the law to bring light to our condition of sin, helplessness, hopelessly lost, bankrupt and unable to merit salvation or forgiveness mush less Love BUT God in His mercy, grace and His Agape Love has provided the full payment…His Condition is simply agree with Him that you are helplessly lost, bankrupt and do not merit even mercy then depend on HIM (Faith) that HE has already done it on your behalf. We come empty handed and depend on His Supply (Faith). How can that be construed as MERIT? It can’t ! Even though there are things about Spurgeon I disagree with when he illustrates Faith it is very much in line with Provisionalism.
“Faith which receives Christ is as simple an act as when a child receives an apple from you, because you hold it out and promise to give him the apple if he comes for it. The belief and the receiving relate only to an apple; but they make up precisely the same act as the faith which deals with eternal salvation. What the child’s hand is to the apple, that your faith is to the perfect salvation of Christ. The child’s hand does not make the apple, nor improve the apple, nor deserve the apple; it only takes it; and faith is chosen by God to be the receiver of salvation, because it does not pretend to create salvation, nor to help in it, but it is content humbly to receive it. “Faith is the tongue that begs pardon, the hand which receives it, and the eye which sees it; but it is not the price which buys it”
Spurgeon speaks of his journey to Faith like this:
“Oh, the many times I have wished that the preacher would tell me something to do to be saved! Gladly would I have done it, if it had been possible. If he had said, ‘Take off your shoes and stockings and run to John o’ Groats,’ I would not even have gone home first, but would have started off that very night if I might win salvation. How often have I thought that if he had said, ‘Bare your back to the scourge and take fifty lashes,’ I would have said, ‘Here I am. Come along with your whip and beat as hard as you please, so long as I can obtain peace and rest, and get rid of my sin.’ Yet the simplest of all matters—believing in Christ crucified, accepting His finished salvation, being nothing and letting Him be everything, doing nothing, but trusting to what He has done—I could not get hold of it.”
NOW most Calvinist’s don’t like how Spurgeon makes Faith as something Non-meritorious.
GraceAdict,
Spurgeon (like Piper) contradicts himself in dozens of his messages.
I have listed dozens of his non-Calvinist sayings elsewhere, but this is a good one, thanks. It shows that he was not “dead” (incapable, blind, a God-hater) until the second before he was converted. No, he, like Cornelius, Lydia, and even many in Athens were reaching out to their Creator God.
What they were doing was not enough….. but it certainly was not “being dead”.
GraceAdict writes, ‘NOW most Calvinist’s don’t like how Spurgeon makes Faith as something Non-meritorious.”
Calvinists make faith non-meritorious saying that it is gift from God and not something that a person is born with.
Absolutely true…not corpse like dead… It is interesting that everyone has faith even the unsaved they are simply placing their faith in something or someone other than God and His Word… The Atheist believes Darwin. People can and do believe (have faith in) a lie. Notice in v 11 below, after rejecting the truth they “believe” a lie — same word that brings salvation if placed in the right object. Faith is not unique to Christians the OBJECT of our Faith is unique – Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. Same greek word in v 11 and 12
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
What I find with Most Calvinist is they are really double-minded. Holding on to two opinions. In the first hand they Hold TULIP, they actually hold TULIP with greater commitment than anything else BUT in the other hand they really do hold the WORD and, at times they just can’t help but say what the WORD actually says. BUT most of the time they are trying to make the WORD agree with TULIP their 1st commitment. So they have to introduce: 1. New Definitions to Words 2. Create new terms 3. Appeal to “mystery” when even they can’t escape the plain meaning of text which obviously contradictions their TULIP. 4. However, Some times we can catch them teaching what the WORD actually says. I rejoice when that happens… I only wish it would happen more often.
GraceAdict
What I find with Most Calvinist is they are really double-minded. Holding on to two opinions.
br.d
Bulls-eye! You hit it perfectly! :-]
GraceAdict writes, ‘It is interesting that everyone has faith even the unsaved they are simply placing their faith in something or someone other than God and His Word…”
The faith that the unsaved place someone else is not the faith that Paul speaks of when he says, ” faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ,” or “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Calvinists are right to distinguish that faith conveyed through the gospel from that human faith of which you speak. You can complain that Calvinists have made a new definition of faith, and thereby reject it, but your philosophy then becomes heretical.
It is the OBJECT of ones Faith/Belief that makes the difference. Faith in the Gospel comes from hearing the Gospel.
Notice below the exact same greek word is used for Believing a Lie as is used for Believing the Truth that saves…. The object of ones Faith is critical thing.
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because They Refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may BELIEVE what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not BELIEVE the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Notice above in the very same sentence the greek word used for Believing what is False and Believing what is True is the exact same word. It is also the same word used below. Nothing different. Same greek word below as well. Believe a Lie or Believe in Him and have eternal life.
Joh 3:15-16 that whoever BELIEVES in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in him should not perish but have eternal life.
I realize for the “TULIP – Calvinist worldview” to hold together it requires Redefining a host of Biblical terms that is Calvinism but that is NOT proper interpretation of scripture. What good is it to say you believe in Sola Scriptura and then proceed to redefine the very WORDS of scripture. You can make the bible support anything if you do that… Absolutely anything. You can even make God the Author of Evil. This is a very dangerous path to be on.
GA,
Well said.
Even just the one verse would do….
2 Th 2:10 They refused to love the truth and so be saved.
———-
In theory, you cannot “refuse” something that is not offered. Calvinists are clear that unbelievers are not “refusing” since the offer is not even being made. (i.e. If Christ was “really offering” they would irresistibly come). Once again Calvinist contradicting direct Scripture.
That is the same idea with my post asking how Calvinists explain that Christ was “Despised and Rejected”? Despised….yes. But not rejected, since (according to them) He was never offered to them.
FOH writes, “Calvinists are clear that unbelievers are not “refusing” since the offer is not even being made.”
You must do this on purpose. FOH formerly mingled with Calvinists, so he knows that Calvinists believe the offer of the gospel goes into all the world. Per 1 Corinthians, “we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Why is it that the gospel is power to the “called” ” It is because they “hear” the gospel (having previously been born again) and receive faith. Christ is always rejected by those who have no faith. As Dr. Flowers has argued, it is not whether the gospel is offered but whether people are able to accept the offer that is at issue.
If FOH is so certain that Calvinism is wrong, why does he keep distorting Calvinist theology? Very suspicious. Wake up, FOH!!
FOH
“Calvinists are clear that unbelievers are not “refusing” since the offer is not even being made.”
jtleosala
December 10, 2018 at 9:45 pm
“Non-Elect were not misled because the legitimate offer of the gospel was not intended for them”
br.d
Excellent job with that br.d!
JTL admits what the rest dance around. They say “external call” and “internal call”
Meaning…He is externally calling everyone but only allowing (“internally calling”) the elect.
To-mat-to, to-mah-to. They say He is calling everyone and His call is irresistible…. but not that offer…only the “internal” call offer.
You cant make this stuff up!
Yes isn’t it amazing! – making stuff up is the Calvinists primary past-time.
You know how they say – “bad company promotes bad manners”.
Some Calvinists are so prolific at making stuff up – they remind me of religious con-artists.
The interesting thing is how they can make up stuff out of the blue – and do it without blinking!
Assuming people are simply naive enough to “believe every word”.
GraceAdict writes, “It is the OBJECT of ones Faith/Belief that makes the difference. Faith in the Gospel comes from hearing the Gospel….Notice above in the very same sentence the greek word used for Believing what is False and Believing what is True is the exact same word.”
You make “faith” and “belief” the same thing and then recognize that one faith/belief is true and one faith/belief is false. This is the same basic point the Calvinist makes. There is a faith/belief derived from the gospel and this is true faith/belief. There is also a faith/belief not derived from the gospel that is false. That’s fine – that’s the essential point on which we both agree.
Then, “What good is it to say you believe in Sola Scriptura and then proceed to redefine the very WORDS of scripture.”
Given that we both understand that there is a true and a false faith/belief, I don’t see the problem with Calvinism separating one from the other using different terms to make arguments easier to understand. You seem to have a problem with this. Such is life. Your position on faith/belief is no different than the Calvinist view from what you describe in your comment.
As a non-confrontational peaceful Calvinist, I’m curious to know how one would answer these questions:
If anyone were given the choice to be saved or to not be saved, what would compel anyone to choose the latter (to NOT be saved)? Why would anyone in his right mind not just give in and accept God’s gift?
What about people who never hear the gospel and never know that there even *is* a choice? (I’ve heard people say that it isn’t fair that God would willingly save some but not others for no other reason but His sovereign will; but how is it fair that someone is damned when he is totally unconscious of his sin and thus the offer of grace?)
br.d
Hello Gena and welcome
Let me address your questions
Gena:
If anyone were given the choice to be saved or to not be saved, what would compel anyone to choose the latter (to NOT be saved)?
br.d
Of course that is the key difference between Calvinism – and NON-Calvinism
In Calvinism – humans are not granted a choice in the matter of anything.
Because a *TRUE* choice requires a minimum of more than one option to exist and be available to choose – in order to constitute a choice.
.
And in Calvinism – no such condition exists within creation.
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – for every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION.
And the creature is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be – and no ability to refrain.
.
In Calvinism – there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed. Thus in Calvinism – ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation for humans to choose between.
.
In Calvinism – Adam did not have a choice between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] was CONTRARY to the decree.
And that which is CONTRARY to the decree is not granted existence within the domain of creation.
.
So a critical difference between Calvinism and NON-Calvinism is the fact that in Calvinism humans are not granted a choice in the matter of anything.
.
Every Calvinist lives moment by moment – within a constant stream of infallibly decreed *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of reality.
The Calvinist is given the *PERCEPTION* that ALTERNATIVES exist for him/her to choose from moment to moment
But Calvin’s god knows those ALTERNATIVES do not exist.
So a Calvinist lives out his/her moment by moment life – experiencing one infallibly decreed *FALSE PERCEPTION* after another
.
Gena:
Why would anyone in his right mind not just give in and accept God’s gift?
.
br.d
Because people are human and humans make mistakes.
.
Gena:
What about people who never hear the gospel and never know that there even *is* a choice?
.
br.d
Be careful now!
Cuz you know in Calvinism – there is no such thing as a human being granted a choice.
.
Gena:
(I’ve heard people say that it isn’t fair that God would willingly save some but not others for no other reason but His sovereign will;
.
br.d
So we first need to establish what “save some” means in Calvinism
In Calvinism what are people actually being saved from?
.
Lets take a look at that:
Per the doctrine of decrees – Calvin’s god – as the divine potter of Romans 9 – has two provisions for mankind
.
His first and foremost provision – is to create the vast majority of individuals throughout human history – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
His secondary provision – is to save a few individuals – from his primary provision.
So in Calvinism – people are not being saved from themselves.
They are being saved from Calvin’s god’s INTENTION for them to be created for eternal torment for his good pleasure.
.
Gena:
But how is it fair that someone is damned when he is totally unconscious of his sin and thus the offer of grace?)
.
br.d
Gena- – you must know – that in Calvinism – there is no *REAL* offer of grace given to those who are infallibly decreed
created and designs for eternal torment in the lake of fire for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
.
In Calvinism – any offer that is offered to the NON-elect is an FAKE offer.
.
blessings!
br.d
Welcome Gena! – I think you are assuming by saying, “given the choice to be saved or to not be saved”, that the person has already been previously convinced they are lost and convinced that the offer of this salvation is a real one. Is that true? If so, then you will need to back up and think about what led that person to that point, and to consider also if they were free earlier to stop following that leading, which brought them to that point.
If you believe [Jhn 1:9 NKJV] “That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world”, and the number of other verses that teach the same thing, then you believe that God gives sufficient light to everyone who has ever lived to start leading them to that point of decision (leaving aside for the moment the question of infants or imbeciles who die). But many do freely reject that light while they are being sufficiently drawn by it, and others freely do not.
Yes, it would be unfair, and unjust, of God to damn anyone, just based on a supposed “sovereign will” to create them with no ability to seek, and also giving them no light about Him and about their sin (Rom 1, 2) to aid them in seeking. Praise His Name that He is not unjust! [Rom 2:4 NKJV] Or do you [O man] despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
Yes, you certainly do need to backup. But the Libertarian never seems to want to backup to the conditions that formed a person’s thinking, e.g. environment, culture, conditioning, age, etc. All the external elements which determine a person’s character and future free will choices, not to mention the biblical fact that man is born sinful. Remember that LFW is incompatible with external influence.
LFW simply has no answer to the fact that there are people groups and individuals—including infants and the mentally challenged—throughout history who die with no revelation of the true God. And because they have no answer they simply deny that it exists!
Is the definition of free will simply multiple options? If one is forced to choose from 2 unwanted options is this free will? LFW is quite inconsistent when it come to their definition of free will—in fact they have no consistent agreed upon definition. If all that free will is is available choice than there is no difference between that and compitilbilist free will, which is define as: “The ability to choose between a range of options, each of which is consistent with one’s nature.”
Both the Calvinist Westminster and 1689 London Baptist confessions of faith teach that man’s will is free but he has a sin nature due to the fall. Calvinism’s foundation is scripture. Therefore to say that Adam or other biblical persons do not have choice would be unbiblical.
The god of the Libertarian is subject to chance and the sinful machinations of man.
When a Libertarian is asked about people who have never heard they will often sidestep the question by pointing out how bad Calvinism is. And, in fact, free will theism is a negative theology in that its main argument is that because Calvinism is wrong LFW must be right!
Well Mike, the Determinist never wants to consider that choices can be determined by a will freely after a person’s spirit is freely evaluating and even developing its own individual thoughts and feelings about available options.
We may never agree, but LFW is not “incompatible with external influence,” but like Adam’s sinning, it is not always coerced by external influence to only one outcome that the person only falsely “thinks”/”feels” was freely made between multiple options.
I’ve shared before my view on infants and imbeciles who die. There are even reformed theologians who taught after death opportunity to choose to believe being provided for them.
And Paul confirms everyone else has “heard” sufficiently to be judged according to the gospel. I personally believe the Scripture is clear that each is enabled by God’s gracious light to believe He exists, and to seek Him and His mercy. What keeps them from then calling out, “God be merciful to me, a sinner”?
Mike,
Remember that LFW is incompatible with external influence
.
br.d
Hello Mike – nice to see you again!
.
That is not a necessary conclusion.
It would be accurate to say a Libertarian choice is not solely and elusively “Determined” by an external influence.
But to be “incompatible” with external influence would not be realistic.
.
For example – take CIRCUMSTANCE_A in which external influences are such that 3 options are available vs CIRCUMSTANCE_B in which 5 options are available.
.
Obviously within CIRCUMSTANCE_A a Libertarian choice is going to have to be “Compatible” with the 3 options which are available. Whereas within CIRCUMSTANCE_B a Libertarian choice is going to have to be “Compatible” with the 5 options which are available.
.
The bottom line of course in all of this Mike – is that a Libertarian Choice – is the very choice you always automatically assume your brain is granted – every time you assume your brain has the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
.
If a Libertarian Choice does not exist for your brain – then your brain does not have the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any mater.
.
And because the process of discerning whether any matter is TRUE or FALSE entails making a choice between TRUE and FALSE on that matter – it follows – if your brain does not have the ability to make a choice between TRUE and FALSE – then your brain has no ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
.
Obviously – you believe your brain does have the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE.
Therefore – it follows – the function you assume your brain has – is by definition – a Libertarian choice.
Of course I would not expect you to acknowledge that.
But it is nevertheless the case.
.
blessings!
br.d
Gena – here is a question for you.
Does Calvin’s god “Save” anyone?
.
The TRUE answer is NO
And here is why
.
1) In Calvinism there are people who are created to be ELECT and people who are created to be NON-ELECT
2) Those who are created to be ELECT are *INFALLIBLY* ELECT and their DESTINY is *INFALLIBLE*
3) Those who are created to be NON-ELECT are *INFALLIBLY* NON-ELECT and their DESTINY is *INFALLIBLE*
4) The ELECT cannot be “Saved” from eternal torment – because it was never a reality or a possibility for them.
5) The NON-ELECT cannot be “Saved” from eternal torment – because Calvin’s god cannot countervail his decree
.
IN SHORT
In Calvinism – we simply have individuals being created at the foundation of the world for a DESTINY which is *INFALLIBLE* and cannot be altered. You cannot “Save” something from an infallible decree.
.
CONCLUSION
In Calvinism – there is *REALLY* no such thing as people being “Saved”
Every person who is created – is given an *INFALLIBLE DESTINY* at the foundation of the world.
And a person cannot be “Saved” from that which is *INFALLIBLE*
Brian, setting aside the free will question, do you honestly believe that the native peoples of the world outside the middle east during the times of the patriarchs had the equal revelation and opportunities as God chosen people Israel?
The issue Mike is never “equal” revelation… but “sufficient” revelation. Do you “honestly believe” God does not give everyone sufficient knowledge of Him and their sin so that they become able to seek Him and His mercy? [Rom 2:4 NKJV] Or do you [O man] despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
Brian
Do you “honestly believe” God does not give everyone sufficient knowledge of Him and their sin so that they become able to seek Him and His mercy?
.
br.d
The answer to that question for the Calvinist is absolutely NO.
Calvin’s god in fact – is a deity of deception.
He determines *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of reality and of himself – will be the predominant perceptions which will infallibly come to pass within the brains of *ALL* human beings including Calvinists.
.
The majority of Calvinists – he creates as CHAFF believers
And he gives those Calvinist CHAFF believers a *FALSE SENSE* of salvation.
Those Calvinists are decreed to infallibly go through their lives with a constant stream of infallibly decreed *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of salvation.
.
They are not granted the ability to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.
.
John Calvin
-quote
He gives them a *SENSE* such as can be felt without the spirit of adoption
He illumines them *FOR A TIME* to partake of it – and then he strikes them with greater blindness
.
These Calvinists are predestined to wake up in the lake of fire for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
It is at that point – that they will realize they were created by Calvin’s divine potter of Romans 9 – to be CHAFF believers.
.
So there are thousands of Calvinist wandering around today accusing others of being NON-elect.
While they themselves have been deceived by Calvin’s god – unable to discern the fact that they are NON-elect.
.
The reason they accuse others – is because Calvin’s god decreed “Accusation” impulses to come to pass within their brains.
They have NO SAY and NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within their brains.
.
Creating Calvinists who have NO SAY and NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within their brains – is the way Calvin’s god glorifies himself.
.
Isn’t Calvin’s god wonderful! :-]
Sorry Brian, but for the free will theist “sufficient” isn’t sufficient. God can not violate man’s free will. If He does He is unfair. If God determines or manipulates man’s situations in any way that might force his decision making this would be Determinism. (This is why Molinism can be defined as “divine entrapment.”) For the Libertarian God must provide all men with an equal opportunity to make a free will decision for salvation (“God is no respecter of persons” Acts 10:34-35). God was only allowed to harden Pharaoh’s heart after he had hardened his own heart a number of times. But even this doesn’t really work under the LFW system because to violate the free will of someone especially at the end of their life—even if they have sinned continually throughout their life—would be unfair! The best example of this is the thief on the cross who repented just before he died. Imagine if God had hardened the thief’s heart due to his life of sin. Even in heaven man must retain the ability and freedom to sin and reject God or he becomes a mere robot. Even in heaven sin must always remain a possibility according to the free will theist.
Sorry Mike. We will continue to disagree on the definition of LFW, for you tie to its definition, imo, unnecessary and unbiblical ideas.
Of course God can justly “violate man’s free will” on occasions, just like a Father with a child, “determines and manipulates… situations in a way that might force” one outcome. That is not “unfair” imo. But then in other situations God allows full opportunity for the LFW to choose between available options.
You state “equal opportunity must be provided”. Can you give me a scholarly definition of LFW that you found that concurs with that idea as necessary to the definition of LFW. I haven’t read such.
Yes, for God to be just, sufficient opportunity, not equal, must be provided for each person to be enabled to freely choose to seek God and His mercy at some point in their lives. Pharoah had that opportunity, imo, before he was raised up to become Pharoah. And, yes, both thieves on the cross at least had that opportunity before they died.
Brian,
I don’t say this often, but GOOD POINT on the “raised up…”
Exodus 9:16
And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.
Those words were directed to the Pharaoh. However, mercy is not SOUGHT OUT here. But, I believe that mercy is GIVEN…DUE TO God raising him up TO SHEW GOD’S POWER, hence, Romans 9.
Ed Chapman
Sorry Mike, your contorted view of LFW is not working for most of us here. God imposes on people all the time with shipwrecks, talking donkeys, or sudden death. He is awesome and does what He wants to do, all while granting us free choices.
Brian, you accuse me of apply “unnecessary and unbiblical ideas” to LFW. This is unfair, one-sided and a double-standard. It seems that you, and your fellow bloggers, are so wise that they completely understand Calvinism, Compatiblism, Determinism and all the philosophical implications. And I’m so ignorant of a true meaning of LFW. Fine, then give me a simple one sentence biblical definition of LFW.
Here’s a definition of Compatiblist free will: “The ability to choose between a range of options, each of which is consistent with one’s nature.” Is this definition biblical? No. There is no philosophical definition of free will in scripture. Biblical free will is simply the ability to choose—and this is not LFW it is just “free will” which Calvinists agree exist (see The Westminster Confession).
This is a challenge. I don’t see an agreed upon understanding and definition of LFW from the people on this blog. I don’t think most of the bloggers defending LFW have read the philosophic literature. So prove me wrong! Give me a simple one sentence definition of LFW.
I thought Mike that I gave this all to you before and you didn’t accept it. But here it is again. The definition is right there in the verse.
1. A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.
2. If a libertarian freewill decision is defined as made “having no necessity” by one who “has power over his own will” and the Scripture gives one example of such a decision existing, then a libertarian free will exists to make that libertarian freewill decision.
3. The Scripture gives such an example in 1Cor 7:37.
4. Therefore libertarian free will exists.
1 Corinthians 7:37 NKJV — Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, 👉having no necessity, but has power over his own will👈, and has so determined in his heart that he will….
I would like to see sound reasoning for rejecting the freewill definition clearly given in 1Cor 7:37.
The key phrase is – μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος – “not having necessity but authority he has over the individual desire”. How that is not seen as a very clear and appropriate definition of LFW being defined by Paul as the foundation for the decision making of this circumstance is beyond me.
I can only see theological prejudice as the reason for rejecting Paul’s confirmation that a LFW decision can be made in this circumstance. And if in this circumstance, then that LFW truly exists for other circumstances is a reasonable inference.
The context is a father’s free will in giving or not giving his daughter in marriage. It is a clear example of a choice of a Libertarian free will to make as seen by the clear statement – “having no necessity, but has power over his own will.”
For more see my article – https://soteriology101.com/2017/07/24/freewill-as-taught-in-scripture/
The term “libertarian” does not appear in scripture. You are unable to provide a simple definition of LFW that would distinguish it from simple free will.
1. “A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.” In other words LFW is LFW. This is circular and meaningless.
2. “If a libertarian freewill decision is defined as…” “IF” it is but what “IF” it is not! “having no necessity by one who has power over his own will…” Calvinists nor Compatibilists argue that being forced into a decision or choice is free will. The kind of choice options illustrated in “Sophie’s Choice” by William Styron and “The Test” by Sylvain Neuvel are not true free will choices—as far as I’m concerned. But some Libertarians are confused by this as the choice come from the internal person.
3. “he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will…” Again, Calvinism is not Hard Determinism and does not define compulsion or force as free will. But man has a sin nature and he often stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, choices that are sinful and evil (John 3:19). Here are quotes from Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor. 7 “…he teaches that it were good for every one to abstain from connection with a woman, provided it was in his power to do so.” and “…that it is indeed expedient and profitable for a man not to be bound to a wife, provided he can do otherwise.” Of course, 1 Cor. 7 is not about free will—a better example would be Isaiah 10 but Libertarians are confused by this passage because it doesn’t fit nicely into their system, and consequently you never mention it in your free will article.
“How that is not seen as a very clear and appropriate definition of LFW being defined by Paul as the foundation for the decision making of this circumstance is beyond me.” Yes it certainly is beyond you because you have a shallow view of free will. Compatibilism does not negate “decision making” or “choice,” but it does understand that the will is control by a myriad of external factors and circumstances.
We do agree that theological prejudice is the problem. Well, I’m finished and I give you the last word if you want it.
Mike
A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.
.
br.d
That depends on how one defines a “Libertarian Free Will”
.
If one defines a “Libertarian Free Will” as a will which is *ALWAYS* Libertarian Free – then that would not be correct – because it could be the case that a Libertarian Choice could be made by a will that is NOT *ALWAYS* Libertarian Free.
.
Where do you come up with these things Mike????
.
A Libertarian Choice – is simply a choice that *YOU* and not someone or something external to you determines.
It is a Choice that is NOT made *FOR* you
But rather is made *BY* you.
It is a decision which is *UP TO* YOU rather than being “UP TO” someone or something external to you.
.
However:
There is a necessary condition for the function of “Choice”
There must be a minimum of TWO options from which to select in order to constitute – having a “Choice”
There must be more than one option available to you.
Otherwise – there is no “Choice” for you to make.
.
For example – you fall out of an airplane
Do you have a “Choice” in the matter of whether you will go up or you will go down?
NO – in that circumstance – you are only granted one option.
The choice to go up does not exist for you because the option to go up does not exist for you.
It is logically impossible to choose something that does not exist for you to choose.
.
In Calvinism – there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed
All ALTERNATIVES are infallibly excluded by the decree.
Therefore ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation – for humans to choose between.
.
In Calvinism – Adam did not have a “Choice” between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT]
1) Was CONTRARY to the decree and therefore not granted existence
2) Was an ALTERNATIVE from that which was decreed – the existence of which would falsify the decree – which cannot be falsified.
.
Additionally – the impulse within Adams brain to [NOT EAT] would be CONTRARY to the decree – and also NOT granted existence.
.
Thus only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN IMPULSE was granted existence within Adam’s brain.
As before when we discussed this, others now have this context thread to see our two views and decide which is more faithful to the Scriptures. Thanks for the conversation. All the best!
Mike
Biblical free will is simply the ability to choose…..
.
br.d
Which does not exist for humans in Calvinism (aka Determinism) because:
1) A necessary condition for a “Choice” is the availability of more than one option from which to choose – in order to constitute a choice.
.
Dictionary.com
CHOICE:
An act or instance of choosing; selection: an ALTERNATIVE
.
The Free Dictionary
CHOICE
1. The act of choosing; selection – a NUMBER OR VARIETY from which to choose
.
Collins Dictionary
CHOICE
If there is a choice of THINGS there are SEVERAL OF THEM and you can choose the one you want.
Your choice is someone or something that you choose from A RANGE OF THINGS
.
Oxford Learners Dictionary
CHOICE
An act of choosing between TWO OR MORE possibilities;
.
Longman Dictionary
CHOICE
if you have a choice, you can choose BETWEEN SEVERAL THINGS
.
KJV Dictionary
CHOICE:
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things
.
In Calvinism – for every event [X] – NO ALTERNATIVE of [X] is granted existence within the domain of creation – in which humans exist.
.
Therefore – in Calvinism – ALTERNATIVES do not exist – for humans to choose between.
It is logically impossible for you to choose an option which does not exist for you to choose.
.
Therefore – if follows – in Calvinism – there is no such thing as humans being granted CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
For every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION and humans are granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be – and no ability to refrain.
.
Therefore in Calvinism – if it comes to pass within a Calvinist’s brain:
1) A PERCEPTION that ALTERNATIVES exist for that Calvinist to choose from
2) That that choice between those ALTERNATIVES is UP TO the Calvinist to make
The it follows:
What that Calvinist is experiencing is a FALSE PERCEPTION of reality – which Calvin’s god decreed to infallibly come to pass within that Calvin’s brain. Because Calvin’s god knows – that his infallible decree does not grant any such thing to any human.
Mike,
Where prophesy is concerned, God does change things to make things happen. This is why the Pharoah was mentioned in Romans 9.
Was it prophesied that Jesus would die on the cross? Yes. By free will Jews? NO. By blind Jews? Yes.
Deu 29:4
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Romans 11:8
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Also, you had said that in heaven, we must have free will to sin. How so? Sin will not be a choice to choose from.
Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
I’m all about free will regarding salvation. But when we talk about Jews, until their blinders come off…which it will…
Romans 9-11…MERCY to those who God blinded.
This is why the book of John was written FOR THE JEWS, regarding God choosing who is going to be DRAWN…The Jews. They transition from The Law of Moses…GOD FOLLOWERS already…to The Law of Christ, to remain GOD FOLLOWERS.
None of this is about Gentiles being chosen, nor is it about ELECTION, or PREDESTINATION. The Law of Christ followers are predestined TO BE___________________. Not that a human was predestined to be saved.
I’m all about free will. But due to prophesy stuff, free will only goes so far. The Pharaoh has nothing to do with salvation issues. It’s about a STORY about Jesus vs. Satan, told by The Pharaoh, playing the role of Satan, and Moses playing the role of Jesus, and the children of Israel playing the role of CHRISTIANS.
Ed Chapman
Mike
God can not violate man’s free will. If He does He is unfair.
.
br.d
What do you mean by “violate”?
MIke
This is why Molinism can be defined as “divine entrapment.”
.
In Calvinism (aka Determinism) –
1) Calvin’s god decided that Adam would infallibly eat the fruit.
2) That decision entailed the DIVINE SELECTION that Adam eating the fruit would be granted EXISTENCE
3) The decree made its EXISTENCE would be infallible.
4) That decision also entailed a DIVINE REJECTION that Adam NOT eating the fruit would NOT be granted existence
5) And the decree established the NON-EXISTENCE of Adam NOT also infallible.
.
So Calvin’s god commands Adam NOT to eat the fruit – while making NOT granting any ALTERNATIVE
Additionally – Calvin’s god had to make a decision about what impulse would come to pass withing Adam’s brain concerning eh fruit
.
Calvin’s god SELECTED the impulse to EAT THE FRUIT would be the only impulse granted existence within Adam’s brain. And the decree made that impulse and NO ALTERNATIVE impulse infallible.
.
Adam was given NO CHOICE in the matter of whether he would eat the fruit
No OPTION to NOT eat the fruit
And NO impulse within his brain to NOT eat the fruit was granted existence.
.
You don’t call that a perfect example of “Divine Entrapment”? :-]
Hmm, where to begin?…..
I think there may be a misconception about Calvinists and free will, which always ultimately comes down to Adam and Eve and the Fall. I do not believe God made A&E eat the fruit and sin….they clearly had a will to do what was right in their own eyes. (How often do we see that in the OT!) Scripture makes it clear that God gave them desire (Gen 3:6, 16), and I think we can imply a will to submit to either God’s desires or their own. They obviously chose their own desires over God’s….and nothing has changed since the Fall. The human’s free will is subject to pride and more often chooses his own desires rather than God’s (even when the choice seems “good” at the time…like how the fruit looked good and delightful).
And so, if salvation is guaranteed by one moment of human will aligning with God’s will, then what about all the moments when the human’s will is prideful/sinful? Then does he lose his salvation? And then does he need to repent and choose to accept all over again…throughout his life?
The Calvinist would say “How merciful and loving is God that He would not leave it up to me for my salvation!! Or else I would be doomed!”
Aren’t the wages of sin death? (Romans 6:23) And if we’ve all sinned (Romans 3:9-23), then we are all dead *spiritually*, and all deserve eternal exile from God. God kicks the sinner out of His presence and prohibits re-entry (Genesis 3:24)… for a time. The whole Bible is about God working out His plan to be in the presence of His people again. People that *He chose* for the sake of *His good and free will.* He chose Abel over Cain, He chose Noah and his family and a few animals over all other flesh, He chose Abraham, He chose Jacob over Esau, He chose Moses, He chose Israel over all other peoples, He chose David over 7 older brothers…. God chooses. I think He’s done a good job choosing everything so far— what is wrong with Him choosing to have mercy on one man but not another? He’s done it so many times!
“That’s not fair! How can God choose one person over another?” >>> Remember Genesis 2:17 and most of Romans? Fairness is *death*. If God were fair, He would have destroyed Adam and Eve and all of creation on the spot at the Fall. So, no…God isn’t fair….He’s merciful instead. Praise His endless mercies on us!!
“You proud Calvinist! What makes you think *you* are chosen by God??” (you might ask). I can only speak for myself and my own heart and experience; but Isaiah 32:17, Romans 8, Hebrews 10 (and others) tell me that I can have assurance through faith in Christ. And Ephesians 2:8 tells me that even my faith is not my own, but a gift from God.
Consider this analogy: Everyone owes a major debt because of sin. To the Calvinist, God put “the money”, so to speak, directly into the accounts of those of His choosing—of His own good pleasure (He surely didn’t have to do it!)—and an auto-payment secured the release of the debt. The humans did not ask for the money, as they didn’t even realize they were in debt until they read/heard the Scriptures. What would *not* make sense to a Calvinist is if God put enough cash on the table for every single person to pay his debt, yet some (who have read/heard Scripture) choose not to take it! Why on earth would they not take the money?!? >>> A Libertarian might say because their hearts were hardened, like Pharaoh’s. But Who hardened their hearts??? Does God still not choose “on whom He will have mercy” in either scenario?
Ok, this is too long….I’ll stop now
Gena,
I’m confused.
You are saying that you are a Calvinist?
Your opening few sentences were clearly non Calvinistic and not deterministic. you’re saying that people had a choice all throughout the Old Testament. that is not the theology of determinism/Calvinism because they believe that God was the origin of all of their choices.
I’m not quite sure you understand fully what Calvinism dictates to the rest of theology
I honestly don’t like labeling myself anything other than a “child of God”, just like all of you. But since I hold firmly to the doctrines of election and absolute sovereignty of God, I wouldn’t know what else to call myself. Maybe just simply “Reformed”?
To be clear, I meant that God is not the author of sin. He did not make Adam/Eve choose sin over obedience….that is not possible for God, as He is holy, good and righteous.
But, yes, I do believe that God is completely sovereign AND that man has a will (which is corrupted by sin).
Gena
Maybe just simply “Reformed
.
br.d
Gena – we are very familiar with Calvinists wanting to distance themselves from the LABEL of Calvinism.
But “Reformed” simply functions as a counter-label for Calvinist.
.
I have given you quotes from Calvin concerning the foundational core of the doctrine
The foundational core of Calvinism – and that which makes it unique and separates it from its alternatives – is classified as EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
In Calvinism – the state of nature – including the state of every individual’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined – and cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
Therefore the state of your nature – the state of every impulse that will come to pass within your brain – at every nano-second in time – is PREDETERMINED before you are created.
.
THUS
1) Any ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed – would COUNTERVAIL and FALSIFY the decree
2) The decree is infallible – and it cannot be FALSIFIED
3) Therefore NO ALTERNATIVES of that which is decreed are granted existence within the domain of creation
4) Thus – NO ALTERNATIVES exist for you to choose between.
5) Any instance in which a PERCEPTION comes to pass within your brain – in which you perceive yourself as having a CHOICE between any ALTERNATIVES would constitute and infallibly decreed *FALSE PERCEPTION* which Calvin’s god decreed your brain to have.
.
6) As a Calvinist – per your doctrine – you go about your day – experiencing a constant stream of *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of choices between ALTERNATIVES which do not exist according to the doctrine of decrees.
.
7) Thus – per your doctrine – you go about your day – experiencing a constant stream of *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of reality – which your brain is not permitted to discern as FALSE.
.
8) Additionally – you are not granted knowledge of whether or not you are ELECT – because per the doctrine – the ELECT are *INVISIBLE* and known only to Calvin’s god.
.
9) In Calvinism – per the doctrine – Calvin’s god creates the vast majority of believers – specifically to be CHAFF believers – whom he has divinely deceived with a *FALSE SENSE* of salvation.
.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such a SENSE …..as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
-quote
He causes those whom he illumines ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
So Calvin’s god gives you NO CERTAINTY of your ELECT status.
If you wake up in the lake of fire – then at the point in time – you will know – that Calvin’s divine potter of Romans 9 created you as a CHAFF believer – for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
Gena,
I’m not a calvinist. I’m not a baptist. I’m just non-denomination.
So, my question to you is… did you ever read 1 Cor 15:42-46?
It discusses our body. The one we have now, and the one after resurrection.
Make a table, one column “Body Now”, the other column, “Resurrected Body”.
The one we have now, including Adam, is DIRT, made of the earth.
That Body is a dying (corrupt), dishonorable, weak body.
This is the main reason that I don’t buy into original sin.
You are right. God didn’t force Adam/Eve to eat anything. Their body is weak, and they succumbed to temptation on their own, based on the weak Body that God gave us.
And if you read Romans 7, Romans 5:13, 4:15, and see what they all have in common. How about the word, KNOWLWDGE?
1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20, the law is the KNOWLEDGE of sin.
Now what does Romans 2:14-16 say?
I say all this to conclude that no one is born with a sin NATURE.
No one gets a sin NATURE UNTIL they get Knowledge of what sin even is.
See ACTS 17:30. THEN go back to Romans 7:7-9, and see when Paul died his spiritual death. It certainly was not at his birth in the flesh.
Ed Chapman
Ed
You are right. God didn’t force Adam/Eve to eat anything.
.
br.d
Well – for a Calvinist to make that argument – it is a red-herring
The appeal to Calvin’s god not FORCING Adam – functions for the Calvinist – as a FALSE representation of Calvinism
Because it infers Adam was granted a CHOICE in the matter and thus would CHOOSE otherwise
Then Adam would need to be FORCED
But in Calvinism – Adam is not granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything.
So there is nothing within Adam that needs to be FORCED
.
All Calvin’s god has to do to MAKE Adam eat the fruit – is to not grant Adam any ALTERNATIVE option.
And an infallible decree – in fact – does not grant any ALTERNATIVE option.
Calvin’s god did not give Adam a CHOICE in the matter
.
Thus Calvin’s god did in fact MAKE Adam eat the fruit.
But he didn’t have to use FORCE in order to do it.
br.d,
I hope that Gena reads your comment to me, as it shows the contradiction of Calvin’s god.
Adam:
You can’t force me to eat it!
God:
I didn’t force you to do anything. I predestined it to happen. And, like an idiot, you did exactly what I sovereignty knew you would. I wrote the play, sovereign that I am. And you can’t go against what I sovereinly chose you to do.
I’m wondering about how Gena depicts the 6 days of creation. Six literal 24 hour days? Then explains that Adam did DIE, THAT DAY, by the way, because he lived about a thousand years for THAT DAY…so, 24 hours in a creation day, but a thousand years for Adam’s death in “that day”? How can they have it both ways?
Ed Chapman
br.d
HA! That is funny Ed!!! 😀
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – in order for Adam to say “you can’t force me to eat” – Calvin’s god would have to knowingly and willing decree that impulse come to pass within Adam’s brain.
.
Its really not a surprise at all – that Gena has been taught things which don’t *REALLY* exist within Calvinism.
.
I don’t know any Calvinist who could *REALLY* swallow the camel of Calvinism and not choke it back up! 😀
Gena
Hmm, where to begin?…..
I think there may be a misconception about Calvinists and free will, which always ultimately comes down to Adam and Eve and the Fall….
.
br.d
John Calvin explains
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Thus accordingly
1) The event of Adam eating the fruit CANNOT HAPPEN unless that event is knowingly and willingly decreed.
2) The impulse within Adam’s brain to eat the fruit CANNOT HAPPEN unless that impulse is knowingly and willingly decreed
3) Thus – Calvin’s god must make a decision about what event will come to pass – he has TWO options
Option_A: Adam will infallibly eat the fruit
Option_B: Adam will infallibly NOT eat the fruit
4) He cannot decree both options to come to pass – because one options cancels the other
He would be a house divided against himself
5) He cannot leave it OPEN for Adam to determine – because that would falsify Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees
6) He *MUST* choose which event will come to pass.
7) He *MUST select one option and reject the other
8) That option which he selects – will be granted existence – and the decree will makes its existence infallible
9) That option which he rejects – will NOT be granted existence – and the decree will make its NON-existence infallible
Thus – when the time comes for the event that he decrees to come to pass – his decree grants ONLY ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION
.
Adam does not have a CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] is NOT granted existence – and thus does not exist an option available to Adam.
.
Also – only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN impulse is granted existence within Adam’s brain.
.
The impulse to [EAT] is infallibly selected – and the decree makes its existence infallible
The impulse to [NOT EAT] is CONTRARY to the decree – and thus not granted existence.
The decree makes the NON-existence of the impulse within Adam’s brain – to be infallibly NON-existent
.
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism – man is NEVER granted CHOICE in the matter of anything – because the decree infallibly excludes the existence of ALL ALTERNATIVES to that which is decreed.
.
Thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist for man to choose between.
.
Your problem – as a Calvinist – is that you are simply in denial of your own doctrine.
Calvinism – led you into a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS – where you assert the doctrine is TRUE – while treating the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Gena
they clearly had a will to do what was right in their own eyes.
.
Gena – in Calvinism – the movement of every atomic particle is PREDETERMINED by divine decree
Thus – the human will – is NOT determined by any human – it is PREDETERMINED by a divine decree
.
In Calvinism – you do not have a “will” that you can call your own.
Whatever comes to pass – concerning your “will” you are not even aware of – until *AFTER* it comes to pass.
.
As Calvinist James White says:
-quote
The Calvinist does not have foreknowledge of the CONTENT of the decree
He only has knowledge of the CONTENT of the decree *AFTER* it comes to pass.
.
Thus – as a Calvinist – you are granted NO SAY – NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL over your will
Whatever your will is – is the CONTENT of the decree
You are not granted knowledge of what you will was decreed to be – until *AFTER* it comes to pass.
Gena
Consider this analogy: Everyone owes a major debt because of sin.
.
br.d
That is not accurate
In Calvinism – at the foundation of the world – before humans are created – every individual human is *ASSIGNED* certain sins and evils to be held accountable for before that individual is created.
.
Calvin’s god does not look down the corridor of time – and see what humans will do – and then hold them accountable.
Because that would constitute a compromise to divine sovereignty.
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
By the eternal good pleasure of god THOUGH THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR, they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god)
.
Thus – in Calvinism- a baby can be born today – and that baby can be held accountable
for something that happened 20 thousand years earlier. And Calvin’s god can decree that baby to eternal damnation – for his good pleasure – for sins that baby never committed.
.
Because sins and evils were infallibly *ASSIGNED* to that baby at the foundation of the world.
.
And as far as the Calvinist is concerned – Calvin’s god is impeachable for his decisions.
Whoever says God doesn’t give man what he *deserves hasn’t believed the Bible → “he that eateth and drinketh *unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s *body” 1Cor 11:29
Hello Jane and welcome
Calvinism entails a radically different conception concerning how what man “deserves” is defined.
.
In Calvinism *NOTHING* within creation is determined by the creature or the condition thereof.
So in Calvinism – what man “deserves” is not determined by what man is or what man does.
.
In Calvinism – what any creature “deserves” is solely and exclusively determined by divine pleasure.
.
Calvin’s god can create a new-born baby – and decree that baby “deserves” to be cast into the fire of Moloch – and then after that cast into the lake of fire for eternal torment – for no other reason than that is Calvin’s god’s divine pleasure.
.
When Calvin’s god creates baby’s for that purpose – the Calvinist is to accept that as “Good”
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god, though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
.
That is radically different from the NON-Calvinist view.
For the NON-Calvinist, what a person “deserves” is determined by what that person makes of themselves and what that person does with what they have been given.
.
For example – if a person robs a bank – then that person “deserves” the penalty for robbing a bank.
In such case – what the person is and does determines what the person “deserves”.
.
But that concept of what man “deserves” is Anathema in Calvinism because it conflicts with Calvin’s concept of divine sovereignty.
.
.
blessings!
br.d
It seems to me that the only difference between a 5-point Calvinist and a Unitarian is quantitative, not qualitative. The Unitarians essentially claim that God will force salvation on every person, while the Calvinists argue that He will force it on a limited number. I think Calvinism leads to Universalism, logically. Neither Calvinism nor Universalism is biblical.
Hello Steve and welcome
.
Your thoughts are very insightful!
.
Calvinism – being based on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) in which every person’s fate is infallibly fixed at the foundation of the world – does follow a similar pattern to Universalism – since they are both based on the premise that human destinies are pre-determined.
.
On the issue of FORCE however – this is actually in-congruent with EDD
Think about it this way
– Two men are sitting at a table arm wrestling
– Each man’s arm is applying FORCE on the other man’s arm
– This use of FORCE is logically necessary because both men have AUTONOMY from each other
– However lets say MAN_A is determining the impulses within the brain of MAN_B
– Technically speaking – MAN_A does not have to FORCE MAN_B to do what MAN_A wants.
– All MAN_A has to do – in order to get MAN_B to do what he wants – is to determine the impulses within MAN_B’s brain
.
This is what happens in Calvinism
Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will be granted existence within every human brain
Calvin’s god does not have to FORCE humans to be or do what he wants
He simply does not grant any ALTERNATIVE impulse within their brains
.
Thus FORCE is not necessary.
.
Blessings
br.d
I am not convinced of Calvin or Calvinism or Calvinistic argument. I already have a Saviour, He is called Jesus Christ. I don’t need another.
Knowing God’s character does not sit well with the idea of a God, or ‘god’ who will save some and damn others for no reason. What’s the purpose of Judgement Day or Christ’s crucifixion, death and resurrection if any person asking for forgiveness cannot be forgiven or asking for salvation cannot be saved? The biggest conundrum for me is the idea of double election, the saved to be saved for nothing they did, and the lost to be lost for nothing they did. Babies are excluded, but at what age do children get cast into hell?? And so on and so on. I have come to believe that God is far more merciful than many people think, yet I also believe implicitly that people will be cast into hell but for their evil and wickedness and unrepentance and wilfully unforgiven sins. I could add further here but I think that will do.
Hello Timbo and welcome
.
After a few years of dialogue with Calvinists – I realized they do not think the way normal people think.
.
Calvinism is taught as as system of TALKING-POINTS – which the Calvinist is required to embrace.
.
RATIONAL reasoning is highly discouraged – and considered a form of HUMAN or DEPRAVED reasoning – and the Calvinist mind becomes conditioned to accept accept TALKING-POINTS as truth.
.
For example – the underlying doctrine will stipulate an infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE within creation.
.
Therefore ALTERNATIVES do not exist – and thus do not exist for humans to choose.
.
So there is no instance in which a human is granted a CHOICE between [X] and [NOT X] because one of those does not exist for him to choose.
.
Calvinists internally find that aspect of their doctrine unpalatable
So they will reject RATIONAL reasoning – and tell themselves ALTERNATIVES do exist even though an infallible decree does not grant existence to ALTERNATIVES.
.
Having ALTERNATIVES to choose between is something they have an emotional need for because it serves a sense of human normalcy.
.
So the Calvinist has an emotional need which is in conflict with his doctrine.
.
They will simply create TALKING-POINTS for whatever they emotionally need – and call those things REAL simply because the need it to be REAL – even though it isn’t.
.
Calvinists however to not want to appear IRRATIONAL – so they will use language designed to present the APPEARANCE they are RATIONAL thinkers.
.
But it is all a FACADE
.
So RATIONAL reasoning is functionally anathema to them.
.
Trying to understand Calvinism or Calvinists with RATIONAL reasoning is a futility – because they reject anything that does not give them what they want – and rely on IRRATIONAL thinking in order to have what they want.
.
.
Blessings
br.d
So in a sense, Calvinist thinking and those who believe is to them automatically self justified so there is no alternative even if there is? It’s perhaps like a religion in itself where no contradictory thought is acceptable in any way. Magical thinking perhaps. I have a number of good friends who hold implicitly to Calvinism within a broader framework of Christianity who believe and even preach an on fire and on message Gospel. But I cannot see the most extreme form of Calvinism and Christianity as truly comparable.
Just as an aside, and this probably has no bearing (baring?!) on this topic, but I thought of how evolutionist and evolutionary scientists and thinkers also twist the truth and ignore glaring contradictions in their thinking to hold onto their views which also have the whiff of a kind of faith which cannot be questioned.
Yes Timbo,
This is very much like evolutionary thinking. There are so many missing pieces to all of that, but they have on a set of lenses that require them to see things a certain way.
So I consider Calvinism requiring its adherents to put on a pair of lenses and interpretations of 20-40 verses or so. They interpret these verses their their own way and all other scripture is read through these lenses.
For instance, one of their lenses is “no one can seek God.”. John McArthur will go on at length about how Romans 3 says no one seeks God.
There are two problems here. Jesus himself on The sermon on the Mount and in other places (as well as the apostles, and psalmist’s) tell people to seek God. Jesus preaches it to it massive crowd of people telling them to seek God. It’s kind of silly to think that He is saying no one can seek God, but then tells all to seek God.
The second problem is that MacArthur and his friends ignore the rest of that poetic imagery quoted from the Old testament in Romans. 3. None of them follow through with their logic and say that everybody fits this following description from that very same passage
Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Really? All of mankind literally has the poison of vipers on their lips? All of mankind literally shed blood swiftly with their feet?
It is incorrect hermeneutics for MacArthur to pick out this one phrase and say it is literal (while the rest is not) and it also nullifies all of the other places where scripture tells people to seek after God.
It’s bery unlike MacArthur in his many, many years of teaching to do such a yank-a-phrase out of context approach.
But Calvinism and the lenses of Calvinism make people do some strange things.
br.d
Yes – Calvinism – as a social structure – maintains what is typically called a “CLOSES SYSTEM” of logic.
.
The doctrine is essentially a radical doctrine – and poses a similar burden on the believer as Solipsism does.
.
Solipsism can be seen as a believe in which the believer is the only REAL human on planet earth and everyone else is a figment of his imagination.
.
That belief is going to have consequences on a person’s life
.
Imagine the Solipsist who treats his boss as a figment of his imagination.
Will that boss be inclined to give that person raises or promotions – or put him in a position as a supervisor over others?
.
Imagine the impact on his married life – where he treats his wife during their intimate times as a figment of his imagination.
.
Will that have a consequence on his marriage?
.
What is typically observed with Solipsists – is they embrace their belief system as TRUE while living *AS-IF* it is not – in order to evade the consequences of living congruently with it.
.
In other words – they treat people *AS-IF* they are real and not figments of the imagination.
.
The same model of behavior can be found with Calvinists.
.
Every Calvinist goes about his office:
1) *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVES exist within creation
2) *AS-IF* he was granted a CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) *AS-IF* that CHOICE was *UP TO* him
.
All of which are FALSE according to his doctrine – because the very existence of any of those things would falsify Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
Consequently – the Calvinist – like the Solipsist – holds his belief to be TRUE – while living *AS-IF* it is FALSE
.
This aspect of the Calvinist belief system – will be manifested in Calvinist language.
.
Dr. David Allen (Professor of Practical Theology)
-quote
Calvinists have the same vocabulary as everyone but they have a different dictionary.
.
Discussions between Calvinists and NON-Calvinists often turn on a linguistic problem: Statements crafted by Calvinist speakers and writers consistently rely on familiar words and phrases (e.g. “choice,” “freedom,” “willing,” “could have done otherwise,”) which the NON-Calvinist is guaranteed to assume carry ordinary meanings.
.
Using language guaranteed to mislead “outsiders” is justified as a strategy for minimizing conflict and maximizing audience acceptance.
.
So any individual who wants to have a discussion with a Calvinist – and not be misled by that Calvinist’s statements – needs to be familiar with the underlying doctrine which frames Calvinist thinking.
.
So anyone who is not familiar with the underlying doctrine is guaranteed to be misled.
.
blessings
What a biased bubble world you live in. The Florist system is apophatic. Its primary foundation is that it is not Calvinism. But you are unable to give any positive or rational explanations for free will, election, predestination, theodicy, etc.
Hello Mike – and welcome!
Hope all is well with you!
.
On your statement about “RATIONAL” explanations … Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD) shows itself to be completely self-refuting – because an EPISTEMIC consequence of EDD is the fact that the human brain is not granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE.
.
.
CALVINISM’S EPISTEMIC FAILURE
.
1. The Deterministic Premise
Under exhaustive divine determinism, every mental state — every belief and perception — is directly and infallibly decreed by God. There are no “undetermined” acts of cognition. All mental errors are determined.
.
2. The Infallibility Constraint
If the decree is infallible, then what is decreed must occur exactly as decreed.
That means a person’s false belief is as fixed as any true belief, and the human mind cannot deviate from that decree to “discover” the falsity of a given belief.
.
3. The Epistemic Consequence
If the decree governs both False beliefs and False perceptions as well as True beliefs and True Perception – then the human mind’s belief-forming process cannot reliably discriminate truth from falsehood on the basis of its internal cognitive faculties, because whether it recognizes something as true or false is itself determined independently of truth-value.
.
The human mind is not granted the epistemic capacity to independently assess the truth-value of its perceptions – because all cognitive states, including the ability to evaluate perceptions, are subject to a divine decree.
.
4. The Result: Epistemic Defeat
If your cognitive states are wholly determined by decree, you cannot know whether any given belief is true — because:
– You have no independent epistemic check (reason, evidence, introspection) that isn’t itself determined.
– Any “sense of certainty” could just as well be decreed false as decreed true.
.
.
Your brain PERCEIVES [X] to be TRUE – not because it is – but because that is the PERCEPTION which was decreed
And your brain is not permitted the ability to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
.
.
blessings
br.d
Thank you for proving my point! The Florists are right because the Calvinist are wrong.
br.d
And that conclusion is RATIONAL???
.
BTW: John Calvin provides an example
.
QUESTION:
Can a Calvinist – per his doctrine – know whether or not his PERCEPTIONS of salvation are TRUE or FALSE?
.
The answer is NO – because a certain percentage of believers are created as CHAFF believers – who are divinely deceived – having been given FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation.
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such A SENSE as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
-quote
He illumines ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even GREATER BLINDNESS (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
.
Notice here – how Calvin identifies TWO PHASES of BLINDNESS
.
Here the term BLINDNESS is defined as the inability to discern.
.
So Calvin provides an example of EPISTEMIC DEFEAT
.
That raises the question – what percentage of perceptions within your brain are infallibly decreed to be FALSE?
.
ANSWER:
Your brain is not granted the ability to know
.
.
Now we know why every Calvinist lives AS-IF his belief system is FALSE
.
Be well my friend!
.
blessings
br.d
Mike,
Actually, you are the one who needs to prove the opposite of free will.
And don’t give me the Romans 9 potter clay excuse, as that has nothing at all to do with sin/salvation as you posit. Oh, boy, but you will try!
Ed
br.d
From my limited understanding – Mike is correct in pointing out – there are questions – which we humans simply do not have the answers to.
.
However – concerning Libertarian Freedom (aka the ability to BE or DO OTHERWISE) vs Determined Freedom – (aka the ability to only BE or DO that which was determined) – what we come to recognize – is EVERY HUMAN BEING whether they acknowledge it or not – assumes they are granted the ability to BE or DO OTHERWISE
.
For example – the human brain’s ability to make a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE does not exist on Determinism.
.
What we understand – is no human can live congruently with that belief system – and at the same time retain a sense of human normalcy.
.
Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist – Atheist Determinist)
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people AS-IF they make decisions.
.
Daniel Dennett (Atheist Determinist)
-quote
“We cannot help acting under the idea of freedom, it seems; we are stuck deliberating AS-IF our futures were open.”
.
John Calvin (Theological Determinist)
-quote
Each ought to so apply himself to his office, AS-IF nothing were determined about any part.
.
William Lane Craig
-quote
Every determinist recognizes he has to act AS-IF he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take.
.
.
We all have our difficulties and challenges…….its part of being human
.
Some day we will know! :-]
.
blessings
br.d
br.d,
I’ve made lots of hints on recent past that God is using the Jews, and the occasional gentile, aka the Pharoah, in order to tell us a spiritual story of our life cycle as humans, as well as the spirit realm of the spiritual war between God and Satan and their fight for your soul.
And because God uses the Jews, and the occasional Pharoah… they are safe and secure in their future salvation.
The land of Israel, for example… it’s a spiritual representation of Heaven. So what do the Jews represent? Humanity as a whole, just trying to get home.
And in those stories, free will is out the window. But it’s for spiritual and prophetic reasons. Not for the flower shop. Not related to an individuals sin, or that individuals salvation.
In addition, Abraham had sin just by the mere fact that he was married to his sister. And God didn’t say a word about it. Not a peep. Can Calvinists explain that? God blessed him and his sister with Isaac. Why?
Calvinists need to clarify what they mean that no one has free will. They use scripture that is intended for Jews and applies or to all of Humanity.
And this David thing, sin in the womb? Who was doing the conceiving? Not David.
Original Sin? That’s not what Romans 5 teaches. But that’s their go-to chapter.
But the opposing side isn’t much better as both sides believe in original sin. But their method of grace is different. I see both as null and void.
Once again, the same old same old. Shift the onus of responsibility and never answer any questions or have a rational explanation for anything you believe. I’m going to ask you one simple question and see if you can answer rationally. What is the definition of libertarian free will according to your theology? If you can’t answer this is one or two simple sentences then we’re done!
Mike,
Of course I shift the responsibility back to you. You are the one making the claim of no free will.
From our perspective, free will is natural. Soup or salad. God didn’t choose for you. And you can’t prove that he did.
So, since you make the claim, prove it!
Besides, atheists tell that to Christians all the time, as we make the claim that there is a God, and they tell us to prove it, since we make the claim.
Ed
So, Ed, what you are telling me is that libertarian free will is just simple choice. So then we have no argument. I believe we have free will to choose. But it seems to me that libertarian free will is saying more. Am I wrong?
Mike,
I don’t use adjectives to describe free will. I just use the words “Free Will”.
Ed
Mike,
I’ll have to get back to you after 6 pl PST. But in the mean time, are you familiar with Romans 5:13 and 4:15?
Who all fell under that?
Then, why, or, what was the purpose of the Pharoah being mentioned in Romans 9?
All those who died in the flood and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob all fell under Romans 5:13, 4:15.
Ed
Mike,
One thing that you need to know from the git-go. This earth was never meant to be our permanent home. Never. There’s nothing that needs “restored” on the earth.
It’s a new heaven and new earth that will be coming, not a restored one.
Now…knowing that…
In heaven there is no evil. In hell there is no good.
But on the earth, we have the best of both.
Free will requires both. Evil is necessary for free will. God is on one side, Satan is on the opposing team.
Yesterday I asked soup or salad.
In heaven you only get soup.
In hell you only get salad.
But on earth, you have a choice.
You get to choose.
When cults sarcastically ask, oh, you mean I can do anything I want in heaven?
Sure…but evil won’t be a choice in heaven. Salad is not on the menu.
This earth is a TEST, not a predetermined outcome. Whether God knows or not, that’s not the point. The point is, we choose.
Jews and the Pharoah are the only ones elect, and it was for a spiritual purpose. Deuteronomy 29:4 sets the stage…for them. Not for us. It’s for a spiritual service. That’s what Romans 9 potter/clay is about. Not for sin/salvation.
Jews had to be blind to kill their messiah. If they could see, no one would be saved. But you fall under Romans 15:21. You are not blind.
So the ole, for there is no difference clause is only for those already in Christ, aka Christians.
The purpose of the Pharoah…God wanted the Pharoah to say NO to the command LET MY PEOPLE GO, for the purpose of showing the battle between God and Satan. The Pharoah plays Satan. Moses plays Jesus. Jews play All Humans.
That was the purpose.
The first part of Romans 9 was not about Jews vs the church… but Paul was using Israel as an earthly example to say…
Not all of God’s creation are his children.
Likewise, Ishmael and Esau are not Israel.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Mike – I believe I did answer the question as best I can.
.
If you read my last post – the a critical attribute of Libertarian Freedom is the ability to BE or DO OTHERWISE
.
For example – the ability for your brain to PERCEIVE [X] as TRUE and also to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE – which would be the normal concept of making a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE
.
If your brain does not have the Freedom to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE – then it cannot make a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE – because an infallible decree does not permit it to PERCEIVE one of those options – and the brain cannot choose what it cannot PERCEIVE
.
You automatically assume that Freedom is granted to your brain – whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
So we both operate under the same assumption of human functionality.
.
However – you embrace a belief system which contradicts those assumptions
So that belief system places a burden on you which I do not have.
.
br.d
So, the key is the ability to do “otherwise” in all cases and circumstances, correct? And more importantly, the ability to do good or bad, correct?
br.d
No – that would not be what we humans observe as reality.
.
This goes to the subject of what is called “Phenomenology”
.
How reality is experienced and perceived from the first-person point of view.
How things appear to human consciousness
How we perceive the existence of ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES
And how we perceive those ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES as existing and available to use to choose between.
.
There is a general principle for choice-making
.
1) Where [X] does not exits – then it follows – [X] does not exist for one to choose
2) Where [X] does not exist for one to choose – then it follows – one does not have a choice concerning [X]
.
So – a world in which ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES do not exist – is a world in which CHOICES between ALTERNATIVE POSSIBLE dose not exist for humans.
.
In Calvinism – the god of Calvinism is conceived as a god who has choice between ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES
.
Therefore he has what would be called Libertarian Choice
.
For the Non-Calvinist Bible reader – where the text says “Let us make man out of our Image” that image includes the attribute of Libertarian Choice (aka choice between ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES).
.
Calvinism rejects that – because an infallible decree does not grant existence to ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
.
So in Calvinism – you are never granted a choice between ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS because an infallible decree does not grant existence to ALTERNATIVES within creation – where humans live.
.
Where it is decreed you will perform SIN_X at TIME_T that decree is infallible and does not grant any ALTERNATIVE
.
You are not granted a choice between [DO] and [NOT DO] because the option to [NOT DO] was infallibly excluded at the foundation of the world – as an event that would be granted existence.
.
But that does not mean ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES exist for everything.
.
If you fall off a cliff – the direction you will go – has been determined by factors outside of your control
.
You do not have a choice in the matter of which direction you will go.
.
So Determinism – is a part of human Phenomenology
But the existence and availability of ALTERNATIVES from which to choose is also.
.
For the Non-Calvinist – that resolves to the existence of Libertarian choice.
Hi Mike! Good to see your replies again! Libertarian Free Will imo is the freedom to do otherwise, but not the inability to be overcome by some external force or freely developed inward hardening or having limited available possibilities to freely choose between. The real issue, imo, is whether you want to believe God has created open possibilities for Himself to freely choose between in the future, and open possibilities to permit man to freely choose between. I believe His Word clearly teaches that He has, and His mind conforms univocally to knowing those possibilities as still open.
I’m slowly coming to the conclusion, for what it’s worth as I’m just an ordinary bloke who is a Christian with an interest in Calvinism and related topics, that perhaps how God operates in this particular realm and many others is really beyond our full comprehension and understanding. I’ve often thought that somewhere between what we call Arminianism and what we call Calvinism is the truth of the matter. We can only really understand so much. I know that electric currents enable my thoughts to move my fingers to type this very message, as much as my education teaches me. After that, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how this and many other things operate other than God created the process in a way I have no way at this time of understanding.
Something to consider concerning both Calvinism and Arminianism.
.
Bible scholars speak of a problem which has plagued God’s people both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament – which is called “Syncretism”
.
Syncretism is the combining or merging of various distinct beliefs or schools of thought, particularly religious ones.
.
In the Old Testament – God commanded his people to “Tear down the high places” but they did not obey that command.
.
God commanded Moses to create the metal serpent in the wilderness – and later after Moses was gone – the people erected it and prayed to it.
.
Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” But the people said nothing.
.
In the book of Revelation the church in Pergamum is warned about those who “hold to the teaching of Balaam”
.
During the embryonic phase of Catholicism – a great deal of superstition existed – and people prayed to relics, amulets, and other blessed objects.
.
Traces of the assimilation of paganism are visible everywhere at Catholic sites. Catholics adoringly touch statues of Pan, Jupiter and the goddess Isis and child, being told they are David, Peter, and Mary with Jesus.
.
English historian, Theodore Maynard
-quote
“It has often be charged… that Catholicism has been overlaid with many pagan incrustations.
Catholicism is ready to accept that charge – and to make it her boast.
The great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.”
.
John Calvin comes out of Catholicism – by not completely.
.
Jacobus Arminius comes out of Calvinism – but not completely.
In his writings – he spends years of time and energy trying to convince people he has not strayed far from Calvin
.
Calvin gets his system from Augustine – the CATHOLIC bishop – who thrived during a period of time in which Catholicism was adding to itself pretty much every form of paganism.
.
Augustine today – is sighted by scholars as the primary source of mixing Neo-Platonism into Christian doctrine.
.
Some scholars observe a combination of Gnostic, and Platonic, doctrines mixed into Calvinism through Augustine’s influence.
.
So the question of Syncretism is now something you and I both have to face.
Personally – I am convinced – Calvinism is a mixture of Gnostic and Platonic doctrines into Christianity
And that is the underlying reason why Calvinism has perennially been controversial.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Here’s one other thing that came to mind too, with Calvinism and any such views or arguments that brook no different views or opposition.
I’ll digress and say I’ve just been reading some of the older comments and long running debates on here, generally very interesting, with good arguments and good understanding of the arguments and debates on both sides which is vital to an honest debate whatever you believe. It is to me anyway! I do notice and have noticed that in most contentious issues and debates there is a tendency to drift towards strawmanning, arguing other points and atracking the other person’s character and so on. I have no desire for this personally, I do want to get to the truth of a matter. I hope most people do.
So, with that aside, and hoping to see honest arguments for and against that can be weighed honestly, I think another major reason why Calvinism, be it truth or not, is so passionately held is because it is a form of absolutism within itself, or in a strange way and I can’t put this any better currently, like the definition of royalty within a system of aristocracy. I hope that makes sense because I am really trying to look at Calvinism objectively and absolutely honestly yet I also say that I am not convinced by Calvinism as a whole even if some of its tenets hold water. So, in brief, I think often humans like the idea of holding to something which (we/they think) cannot be argued against and puts them in the right and makes everyone else wrong.
br.d
Yes – straw manning can definitely happen – and is defined as an argument about someone’s position which is fallacious.
.
For example – it is not unusual for a Calvinist can assert- any critique of Calvinism is a done because the person who presents the critique -quote “hates Calvinists”.
.
But internally within the Calvinist fold – we can find Calvinists critiquing one another.
.
John MacArthur for example – is seen as a “compromised” Calvinist by more hard-core Calvinists.
.
But that observation coincides with observations made by Dr. Flowers and others – so its is obviously not a critique made by people who “hate Calvinists”.
.
If you watch Dr. Flowers Youtube Videos – you will find find him playing video clips from high-profile Calvinists like John MacAurthur – where he plays statements they make – which contradict Calvinism’s underlying doctrine.
.
Here are some quotes from Non-Calvinist authors concerning Calvinist language practices:
.
.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – in its article on Theological Determinism writes this concerning the language used by Calvinist Paul Helm:
-quote
“Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”
.
.
Dr. William Lane Craig, in his interactions with Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth, in the authoring of the book Four Views on Divine Providence:
-quote
“A A. Hodge’s six-point summary of the classical Reformed view of divine providence, quoted by Paul Kjoss Helseth under ‘The True View of Providence Summarized’ falls short of expressing the radical distinctives of the Reformed position that Helseth defends.”
.
.
Dr. Jerry Walls, (What’s wrong with Calvinism)
-quote:
“If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”
.
.
Norman Geisler (Chosen but Free)
-quote:
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
.
Laurence M. Vance (The Other Side of Calvinism)
-quote:
“The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)
.
.
Micah Coate (The Cultish side of Calvinism)
-quotes:
“Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak.”
.
.
Ex-Calvinist Ronnie W. Rogers (Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist)
-quote:
As mentioned in several places throughout this book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call doubletalk. But I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do this out ill motive or intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the scripture. Nor do I ascribe this to my Calvinist brothers. As a matter of fact, I did it because I believed Calvinism and the Scripture; and this brought about conflicts, or at least unconscious responses to the conflicts, which I now see as doubletalk. This doubletalk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism. ”
.
.
David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood (Anyone Can Be Saved)
-quote
“This is a clear example of what I call Calvinism’s double-talk. By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking….speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of Calvinism. If a person accepts these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist. But if one is unwilling to face them and accept them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double-talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be a pejorative.”
.
.
Gilbert VanOrder Jr (Calvinism’s Conflicts)
-quote
“Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.
.
.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely (Calvinism a closer look)
-quote
“Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false…
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”
.
.
Francis Hodgson (The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination)
-quote
“The apology for this gross misapplication of language…..is found in their distressing emergency.
In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”
.
.
You can see from these quotes – a consistent observation made by observers – is a form of DOUBLE-SPEAK language which is consistent with the Calvinist belief system.
.
This would lead one to ask the question – why?
Why would a person need to rely on DOUBLE-SPEAK?
.
The answer would be – because the doctrine imposes things upon the believer’s life – which he does not find palatable to live with – and eradicates things from the believer’s life – which he does not find palatable to live without.
.
.
Any belief system which is radical enough to be self-threatening – but which the person does not want to give up – is going to be a belief system the person is going to have to find a way to live with.
.
.
Living *AS-IF* one’s doctrine is FALSE – in order to retain a sense of human normalcy – serves that function.
The DOUBLE-SPEAK would be a naturally expected result.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Yes I can’t argue with that. As regards syncretism yes I think you’re right as regards to what labels we apply to very complex topics that we try to simplify for ease of use.
Yes! Good wisdom!
.
In our limited knowledge there are many things within the universe which we can only honestly claim to have a “best possible” understanding of.
.
The vast majority of the human population – throughout history – for example – have held to the belief that ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS do in fact genuinely exist – and are not illusions – or in Calvinism’s case – false perceptions of reality – which a supernatural deity decreed our brains to experience.
.
For example – take the Calvinist situation – where an infallible decree – does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees within creation.
.
Calvinism’s doctrine stipulates – all perceptions within the human brain are also decreed – and cannot be otherwise from what they were decreed to be.
.
And yet – what the human mind experiences – on a moment-by-moment basis is ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS which genuinely exist – and which we can and do genuinely choose between
.
If the doctrine is true – then what we have is a supernatural deity who decrees our minds to experience false perceptions of reality on a moment-by-moment basis.
.
Calvinism’s doctrine stipulates – the Jehovah’s Witness believes his doctrine to be true by an infallible decree which cannot be countervailed.
.
And the Mormon believes his doctrine to be true by an infallible decree which cannot be countervailed.
.
The human mind is locked into infallibly decreed false perceptions
.
.
That is a pill that is so hard to swallow – even Calvinists do not want to accept it – especially if it applies to themselves.
.
John Calvin – for example – expressly states a percentage of believers are divinely deceived – given false perceptions of salvation – and they will eventually wake up in the lake of fire.
.
In my many years of dialogs with Calvinists – only the very mature one’s will acknowledge that as a possibility for themselves.
.
And you can understand why most Calvinists will reject it out of hand
The idea of being created by God specifically for the lake of fire is not an appealing thing for anyone to consider
.
So that goes to show – there are many aspects of Calvinism which Calvinists themselves struggle with.
.
We can have empathy for them – and ask the Lord to deliver them free – from what appears to be a mental ensnarement
.
blessings
br.d
This is all biased speculation that is not in any of the Calvinist creeds. Some of what you are saying even goes against many of the LFW philosophies. You are straw manning Calvinism. And still you have no coherent free will definition of your own. Just answer this question: To have true libertarian free will must you be able to choose between good and evil?
Hey Mike,
Was Adam truly able to choose between good and evil?
Could he have chosen to not eat?
How about in chapter 4 when God says to Cain:
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
Were either Adam or Cain “free” to do other than they did?
That’s a very good answer. We presume that Satan had been cast out of heaven before Adam was created, right? So perhaps the notion of predestination and freewill as opposed to predestination vs freewill may also involve a moral imperative. We would not choose evil or to rebel against God if Satan had not rebelled after all.
Of course, I am new to these arguments and I do want to look at the fors and againsts because it is contentious. Just as a side note, Alesteir Crowley the known Satanist was from a family who were Plymouth Brethren and he had come to believe that he was not of the elect so completely rejected God.
Timbo,
Let’s wait to see if Mike answers.
If Mike freely decides that Adam was free, then God created a world where man was free, and He never indicated rescinding that. In fact He repeats it to the next post-fall generation (Cain).
If Mike freely decides that Adam was not free to choose, well, there there would be a lot of disingenuous statements on God’s part…… starting with…..
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Looks very much like God is saying Adam is free to eat or not eat (I mean He starts off His whole story with that idea!!).
Then, to make it crystal clear that man is free to choose, He repeats it to Cain.
Do you think Mike is predestined to answer, or is it his free will??
Just my little joke. 😂
Wonderful!! ;-D
.
Actually – there is a lot of underlying power in that question!
.
Good one!!! :-]
From one Calvinist to the next – there is disagreement on this topic.
.
James White – for example – will argue Adam had Libertarian Freedom and it was lost in the fall.
.
Historic Reformed authors – however – Jonathan Edwards, Francis Turretin, and especially current Reformed authors such as Dr. Paul Helm – argues Libertarian freedom never existed within creation.
.
Paul Helms
-quote
The WCF’s statements about god’s attributes and god’s eternal decree imply theological determinism and thus rule out libertarian free will.
.
.
Calvinism strictly asserts EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
THUS
1) Nothing OTHER than that which was decreed can exist or happen
.
2) Nothing CONTRARY to the decree can exist or happen
.
3) No ALTERNATIVE from that which was decreed – can exist or happen.
.
.
Adam will [EAT] was decreed
.
Therefore the FREEDOM to [NOT EAT] is CONTRARY to the decree – and not granted existence within creation.
.
Since [NOT EAT] did not exist – it follows – it did not exist for Adam to choose
.
And the impulse to [NOT EAT] would also be CONTRARY to the decree – and not granted existence within Adam’s brain.
.
.
GOTA LOVE CALVINISM!!!! 😀
br.d,
Many people concentrate on the fact that Adam disobeyed God, but the reality of it was, he got KNOWLEDGE that God didn’t want him to have, the CONSEQUENCES of disobedience. He got KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
In essence, God told him to STAY IGNORANT, for as long as he is ignorant, he’s innocent.
But Satan comes along and states, just like the atheists do to us Christians, “Stop being so ignorant and get educated. So, educated they got. From the college of knowledge. A Tree.
Ya, he had free will. But as 1 Corinthians 15:42-46 shows, he was made WEAK, and DISHONORABLE, and already dying anyway…and that was GOOD, according to God.
He was gonna die anyway, whether he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or not…unless, he would have eaten of the other tree that no one talks about, thinking that tree is just a metaphor. Why would God have to block access to a metaphor with flaming swords?
If there is no free will, then why the flaming swords to PREVENT Adam from eating from it? Calvinism makes NO SENSE.
Yes I agree – Calvinism IMHO is an ego trip!!!
That is what it actually boils down to.
.
In Paul’s day – there were teachers who he quipped and called SUPER apostles
.
These were more than likely someone like a John Calvin – who came along with all sorts of DIVINE SECRETS which only he was granted knowledge of.
.
The Gnostic mind perceives itself as ELECT where others are NOT ELECT
And the ELECT have a special gnōstikoi which the NON ELECT do not have.
.
I was in a dialog with a Calvinist yesterday – who claimed Calvinists see DEEPER MEANINGS within scripture
.
I reminded him – that is exactly what a Gnostic would say :-]
Mike – it is totally understandable that things which the doctrine stipulates – which a Calvinist is guaranteed to find unpalatable – are NOT going to be found enunciated within Calvinist creeds or confessions.
.
So the fact that you don’t find some consequence of the doctrine in a creed is a fully understandable.
.
I have dialogs with professing Calvinists all the time – who reject the writings of John Calvin and historic reformed authors.
.
Why?
.
Because they find statements within those writings which they do not find palatable..
.
Divine sovereignty which they are not willing to allow their god to have.
.
.
For example:
Calvin is logically consistent with the doctrine of decrees – in his explanations of CHAFF believers.
.
A CHAFF believer – is a believer who was created by the divine potter of Roman’s 9 – to be a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction.
.
The CHAFF believer is in all probability totally convinced he is saved.
.
Ligonier ministries
-quote
The visible church comprises all those who claim or IDENTIFY as followers of Christ.
The invisible church comprises all those who REALLY ARE followers of Christ.
.
.
In Calvinism – how did that happen – unless it was decreed?????????
Nothing can exist or happen within creation that is NOT decreed
.
.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such A SENSE as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He illumines ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
Notice here how Calvin identifies TWO PHASES of BLINDNESS
Here the term BLINDNESS is defined as the inability to discern
.
.
So Calvin is providing an example – of an infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTION which the mind is not permitted to discern.
.
How do you know if the perceptions of salvation you are having are true or false?
.
If the perceptions which your brain were decreed to have are FALSE perceptions – established by an infallible decree – then your brain is not permitted to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE – because nothing within creation can be OTHER than what it was decreed to be.
.
You can call that SPECULATION all you want – but it actually LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from what the doctrine stipulates – whether you want to accept it or not
.
Many professing Calvinists don’t for emotional reasons.
And just like you – they have various justifications for being in denial
.
They of course don’t acknowledge they are in denial – they claim they are thinking RATIONALLY
.
That is what they tell themselves :-]
.
.
I would humbly ask you to not demand people provide RATIONAL explanations – when you yourself are not willing to RATIONALLY engage with the content they provide.
.
blessings
br.d
Mike: To have true libertarian free will must you be able to choose between good and evil?
.
br.d
That would be classified (See Jonathon Edwards) as a CONTRARY choice.
.
If determinism is TRUE – then (as Edwards argues in his essay “On the power of contrary choice”) the answer would be NO.
In Determinism – the human brain does not have the ability to make a choice between CONTRARY options.
.
Remember also – nothing within creation can be CONTRARY to an infallible decree.
Where it is decreed you will do [X] then the power to DO OTHERWISE is not granted
.
Thus – where it is decreed you will perform SIN_X at TIME_T – that decree is infallible – and does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
.
Do you own research on the topic of ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES within determinism
.
Now concerning your question:
1) A state of affairs in which Determinism is NOT EXHAUSTIVE – would be a state of affairs in which ALTERNATIVES do genuinely exist- and the human brain has the power to choose between them.
.
2) So a Libertarian Choice – would be what Jon Edwards calls a CONTRARY choice (aka choice between CONTRARY options)
.
3) So where a Libertarian choice exists – then it follows – the human mind has the power to choose between good and evil – with the exact same power the human mind has the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE.
.
“Good” is CONTRARY to “Evil”
“TRUE” is CONTRARY to “FALSE”
.
If your brain has the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE – then it has the ability to choose between good and evil
.
If your brain does not have the ability to choose between good and evil – then it does not have the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE
.
.
.
blessings
br.d
You have never really studied the free will issue. This is evident in the simplistic accretions you make—accretions that don’t even agree with many of your free will apologists. You accuse Calvinists of philosophizing and poor reasoning but you don’t even understand the issues.
Ed, doesn’t even know what the term “libertarian” free will even means, even though this is a key term from your own free will apologists! Be honest, you have not really studied this. Have you ever wondered why most of the free will theist apologists are Molinists? Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig reject the idea that having the ability to choose otherwise is a strict requirement for a choice to be considered libertarian free. Do your research and stop gaslighting Calvinism!
Augustine’s Gnostic/Manichaeism influence is bunk. Ken Wilson is a fringe scholar. Most mainstream Augustinian scholars disagree with the premise that Augustine “borrowed” his core tenets from Mani, emphasizing instead that Augustine explicitly and repeatedly denounced Manichaean dualism and determinism, building his later views on grace through his distinct reading of Pauline epistles.
Jonathan Edwards argued that humans have the freedom to do what they choose, but they are not free to choose their fundamental desires. Jonathan Edwards speculated extensively on both the origin of Satan’s fall and the nature of Adam’s choice in the Garden. I can appreciate his speculations but they are just speculations.
“Was Adam truly able to choose between good and evil?” YES. So I answered your question simply and straight forward. Now you answer my questions in the same way. Does the ability to choose between good and evil make free will possible? And would you agree with the statement, “Love is impossible without free will”?
Mike,
If you agree that Adam was FREE TO CHOOSE between Good and Evil, WHY THEN, do you argue against free will? So WHAT CHANGED? Original Sin…RIGHT?
Original Sin is the BASIS for your beliefs in Total Depravity…RIGHT? Let’s boil down to the ORIGINATION and FOUNDATION of your inability (pun intended) to believe in total and complete free will.
Where does it ORIGINATE?
I had a conversation with Google AI earlier today. The following is a quote from AI.
“The “T” in the TULIP acronym stands for Total Depravity, which is deeply rooted in the concept of original sin. It asserts that the Fall of man corrupted every part of human nature—mind, will, and emotions—leaving people spiritually dead and unable to choose God on their own without divine intervention.”
That began, WHEN? Before Adam got knowledge of good and evil, or after he got knowledge of good and evil? If the “T” is deeply rooted in Original Sin, then I would conclude AFTER.
So, there was no TOTAL DEPRAVITY before Original Sin. RIGHT?
So, I asked AI…
“Calvinism believes that Adam had free will to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
And AI answered:
Yes, classic Calvinism explicitly teaches that Adam possessed true free will before the Fall. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote that Adam’s will was perfectly capable of choosing good or evil, and that he “fell solely by his own will”.
And even YOU agree with that.
So, you believe in FREE WILL up and until Adam got knowledge of good and evil.
If you REMOVE Original Sin from the DOCTRINE of TOTAL DEPRAVITY, then your TOTAL DEPRAVITY falls flat, and so does your IRRESISTABLE GRACE (as well as PREVENIENT GRACE, and any other ADJECTIVE GRACE, as well).
Free will STANDS for all things, including the ability to seek God.
NO one is spiritually dead at birth. One spiritually dies at the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Romans 7:7-9.
Stop listening to your philosophers!
Debunking Original Sin is EASY PEASY. Romans 5 doesn’t match up to GENESIS 2:17. IT does match up with Romans 7:7-9.
Genesis 2:17 is SPIRITUAL DEATH at the knowledge of good and evil. Romans 5 is NATURAL DEATH because Adam never ate of the tree of life! And due to him eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God forbade him from eating of the tree of life. He still could have received eternal life even in a fallen state. Adam was going to die no matter what he did or didn’t do, unless he would have eaten of the tree of life. He began in a body that dies, and ended up in a body that died. 1 Cor 15:42-46. He didn’t begin in a body that doesn’t die.
So your whole premise is WRONG. We all have FREE WILL…all adjectives. There’s no such thing as TOTAL DEPRAVITY, no such thing as Irresistable Grace, no such thing as Original Sin, no such thing as BORN DEAD. The only way to be DEAD in your TRESPASSSES AND SINS is to first KNOW THE LAW.
Abraham, married to his sister…HE DIDN’T KNOW it was wrong, or should I say, AGAINST THE LAW. Was he DEAD IN HIS SINS AND TRESPASSES? NO. WHY? Because he didn’t know the law…and God never told him, either. What did God do about it? NOTHING, but gave bro/sis an inbred Isaac.
How about all those who died in the flood? Dead in their sins and trespasses? NO. No knowledge of good and evil. No moral compass. No law.
How about the idol worshipers at Mars Hill? No, God “winked” at that. Ignorance gets you everywhere. KNOWLEDGE gets you accountability.
KNOWLEDGE.
Your non-free will is BUNK. Original Sin is the DRIVING FORCE behind all REFORMERS and Catholic doctrines alike. It’s the DUMBEST doctrine of them all, because it’s a SHARED doctrine.
Ed
Ed, instead of answering my two simple questions you go off on a tirade about Total Depravity and your debate with AI. Instead of wildly speculating on what you think I believe just answer my two questions. Before we can discuss TULIP we have to agree on a definition of free will. (Most of what I said was a response to BR.D. Let’s see if he answers the questions.)
Him Mike
.
There is no guarantee my latest post will answer any of your questions for a few reasons.
.
For example – you asked for a RATIONAL explanation.
But what you were REALLY asking for was an affirmation of Calvinist creeds.
If I had known that was your REAL request – I would have declined.
.
When you ask questions – there is no way of knowing what the definitions are for the words you are using in your question.
.
Calvinism has a specialized dictionary for a labyrinth of commonly used words and terms.
And when they use those words and terms in sentences they give no indication those words have altered meanings.
.
Check out my latest posts – and see if they provide any answers for you.
.
blessings
br.d
I’m sorry to say this but you are being ingenious, and I think you know it. If you can’t answer the questions: “Is free will dependent on the ability to choose between good and evil?” and “Is it true that love is impossible without free will?” with a simple yes or no—questions that are coming from your side of the argument—then I have to wonder about your
sincerity. If someone asks you if you believe in Jesus or in the gospel do you say “check out my latest post?”
Mike,
Dude, please! It’s all related, Mike. Original Sin TRIGGERS everything that you believe. Without THAT ALONE, you have nothing, your whole religion falls apart, falls flat.
Free will is CONNECTED to your “T”, and it was all triggered by Original Sin.
You always know a cult when one lie has to cover another lie, which covers another lie. YOU are in a CULT.
Ed
br.d
Be nice ED!!
br.d,
No other religion gets me this worked up! I’m reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Adams about Calvinism:
From Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
11 April 1823
Dear Sir Monticello April 11. 23.
The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of “mon Dieu! jusque à quand”! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. he was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Dæmonism. if ever man worshipped a false god, he did. the being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a dæmon of malignant spirit. it would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin…
…So much for your quotation of Calvin’s “mon dieu! jusqu’a quand”…
Thomas Jefferson
br.d
Yes! I know – people can get really frustrated by it – because there is a labyrinth of DOUBLE-SPEAK
.
So conversations quickly devolve into a WHAT-A-MOLE game :-]
You’re citing Thomas Jefferson on religious beliefs?! Thomas Jefferson’s religious beliefs were rooted in the Enlightenment. He was a Deist and a Unitarian. He rejected the Trinity, Jesus’s divinity and miracles, and traditional church dogma.
br.d
This is called the Genetic fallacy (a specific kind of ad hominem by source)
.
Judging the truth of a claim based on the supposed origin/identity of the speaker, rather than the reasons/evidence for the claim.
.
Even a stopped clock is correct two times per day :-]
.
blessings
br.d
What you are doing is called fallacy-chopping or the Fallacy Fallacy. The problem with the genetic fallacy is that the simple reason one is quoting and identifying the individual is a claim to authority. If only the quote was necessary then identifying who said it would not be needed. Is it really a fallacy to point out the flaw in a person’s ideology when commenting on certain subjects? Is it wrong to say that listening to the views of Hitler on the state of the Jews would be ill advised?
Hi mike – you are assuming a ” claim to authority” where none actually is.
.
Mike:
Is it really a fallacy to point out the flaw in a person’s ideology when commenting on certain subjects?
.
br.d
The fallacy is automatically declaring a person’s position concerning [A] to be false based on that person’s ideology concerning [P]
.
mike:
Is it wrong to say that listening to the views of Hitler on the state of the Jews would be ill advised?
.
br.d
Calling a person’s position concerning [P] as “ill advised” is not the same thing as claiming that person’s position concerning [A] must be false because of his position concerning [P]
.
That’s why they say – a stopped clock will be correct at least 2 times per day
.
.
blessings
br.d
Can you say anything without equivocating? And you have still not answered my 2 questions. I can only assume that you are unwilling to have a reasonable conversation on free will.
br.d
UG!!!!!
.
A person provides sequentially deductive reasoning – laid out in almost numbered form – so that any one of its points can be shown *THROUGH LOGIC* to be fallacious.
.
But instead of engaging in a precision manner *THROUGH LOGIC* the other person’s response is to make IPSE-DIXIT declarations.
.
When a person follows that pattern – it is more than likely the case – that that person internally recognized using *LOGIC* is going to show their position to be false – and they don’t want that to happen.
.
The person internally calculates – making IPSE-DIXIT declarations is the only strategy they have.
.
Example:
.
Annalist to Jehovah’s Witness:
– Your doctrine stipulates [A] which logically leads to [B] which logically leads to [C]
– Therefore – your doctrine logically entails [A, B, and C]
.
Jehovah’s Witness
– You have straw-manned our doctrine – because your logical analysis does not conform to our creed.
– All you are doing is equivocating.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Blah, blah, blah… I answered the 2 questions put to me about the free will of Adam and Cain simply and straightforward, but you refuse to answer my 2 questions. I’m trying to have an intelligent conversation about this issue but you refuse to address any of my points or questions. All you want is a one-sided lecture.
DW: Thank you for exemplifying it – exactly as I described it!
.
The Lord is good! :-]
Mike,
Yes, you answered the question of Adam and Cain…THAT SETTLES the issue of FREE WILL for everyone for all time.
What I want to know, is WHERE the TRIGGER is for YOUR theology of NO FREE WILL for choosing GOOD. What’s the TRIGGER? That’s a question that YOU won’t answer. I related it to ORIGINAL SIN, and you think I’m going off on tangents.
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION….WHAT’S THE TRIGGER THAT CHANGED it from being able to CHOOSE Good, no NOT BEING ABLE to choose good.
Answer the question.
Ed Chapman
Ed, I’m not understanding what you are asking me. I’m not saying there is no free will. Free will is the ability to choose based on your nature. Eve choice to disobey God was on the advise of the serpent who said she would be like God. Adam chose to disobey God because Eve gave him the fruit and he ate it. Satan’s fall was because of pride. I’m not exactly sure that the Bible tells us what the motivation (trigger) was behind Adam and Eve’s choice.
Mike,
If that’s what you believe, Then EVERYONE can choose God without any obstacles put before them. Then also NO ONE has TOTAL DEPRAVITY. Then also NO ONE needs PREVENIENT GRACE, OR IRRISISTABLE GRACE. All of which is DEPENDENT on Original Sin.
There, your question is ANSWERED once and for all time.
Ed Chapman
Ed, this don’t answer the 2 question I asked BR.D. But you do know that Arminians and Florists believe in Original Sin.
Yes, I know that both sides of the KOINE believes in Original Sin, and that is MY COMPLAINT with both sides, which is why I said:
1. PREVENIENT GRACE
2. IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Both of those are DEPENDENT on Original Sin.
But there was this one guy, at band camp…that didn’t believe in Original Sin, and he was accused of heresy. But he was RIGHT.
In any regards, everyone has free will to choose God, or reject God. Calvinists think that it’s BY NATURE to reject God, and WHY? Because Adam ate an apple! Hence, your “T”. So, in order for anyone to SEEK GOD, God has to press a magic button called, either one or two above, and BAM, abracadabra, scooby doo, the T DISAPPEARS, SAVED.
Ed
FOR THE GROUP:
.
The current academic position on Libertarian freedom:
.
Libertarian free will has not been decisively established as impossible, and serious academic philosophers argue that existing arguments do not successfully refute it.
.
Here are a few quotes from more recent contributions:
.
Dr. Mark Balaguer (Philosophy CSU – Why There Are No Good Arguments for Any Interesting Version of Determinism)
-quote
“It is argued that at present, we have no good reason to believe even these weak deterministic views and, hence, no good reason—at least from this quarter—to doubt that we are libertarian free.”
.
.
László Bernáth (Metaphysics, free will, epistemic normativity)
-quote
Concernign Libet-Style experiments – some forms of deliberative libertarianism and restrictive libertarianism cannot even in principle be denied on the basis of these experiments” (Why Libet-Style Experiments Cannot Refute All Forms of Libertarianism)
.
.
Dr. Jovan M. Tadić (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute)
-quote
“Those who claim that [Libertarian] free will is impossible — whether because of determinism, because of indeterminism, or because of the temporal order of neural and conscious events — owe us more than what has so far been provided.” (Problem of Free Will in Determinism)
.
.
On the other hand – the consequences of Determinism are devastating (if one takes Determinism without compromise)
What Calvinists rely on to evade its consequences are IPSE-DIXIT declarations designed to MAGICALLY evade its consequences
.
.
Blessings
br.d
Mike,
If you can’t answer the TRIGGER question, then there is NO TRIGGER for ANYONE to NOT be able to choose God.
Well, I answered the “TRIGGER” question as best as I could. People are motivated to make choices based on a whole host of reasons. Why did I choose vanilla instead of chocolate, because I like the taste of vanilla better.
Mike,
Since God did not force you to choose vanilla, then you have the same free will to choose or reject God. To the COMMON SENSE people, there is no such thing as TYPES of free will. It’s just BORIS.
Ed
WHAT IS AN UNDERCUTTING DEFEATER
.
An undercutting defeater is an argument posed by Person_B designed to show that the reason (or warrant) Person_A uses to support their position fails – because it can’t do the justificatory job it’s supposed to do (e.g., it can’t rule out self-refuting error).
.
Let Person_A hold a deterministic view:
.
Person_A’s claim:
Every impulse, perception, and belief granted existence within the human brain is fixed by an infallible decree with no alternatives granted existence.
.
Person_A’s implicit warrant:
Even though all perceptions are decreed and cannot be other than what they were decreed to be – the human brain is still granted the ability to recognize true from false.
.
Person_B argues:
.
1. Both false and true perceptions are fixed by infallible decree.
2. The brain cannot deviate from the decree to recognize false perceptions as false.
3. Therefore the brain treats even false perceptions as true, with no ability to detect error (i.e. perceive otherwise).
4. Therefore the system that generates perceptions grants the brain no way to differentiate true from false.
5. Therefore Person_A’s justificatory idea (that perception can serve as a truth-tracking basis) fails.
.
Why undercutting defeaters are useful in dialog
.
The undercutter wins by showing that the opponent’s reasoning mechanism cannot do the job the opponent assigned to it.
.
A critical point:
In this case Person_B does not need to prove that their own view is true.
.
Person_B defeats Person_A by showing that, given Person_A’s commitments, perception cannot function as a truth-tracking basis; therefore Person_A’s justificatory warrant fails.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Mike,
Ya, Baptists love to bash Jefferson for the same reason you do… the word “Deist”!
You have no idea of the letters that Jefferson wrote. In a letter addressed to Bejamin Rush, he admitted to being a Christian, and that he hated that others accused him of being anti-Christian.
But, he believed that the church of England corrupted Christianity, making Jesus God, and inventing a Virgin birth.
Jefferson qualified his use the word “Deist”, not as a generic god as you conclude, but as the belief in only one God, the Father of Jesus, the God of the Jews. He didn’t much care for the Jews in the way that they disrespected God in their behavior.
In addition, both be and James Madison attended Christian worship services every Sunday in The US House of Representatives.
So before you go badmouthing Thomas Jefferson… do some research at government websites such as the Library of Congress.
Ed Chapman
It’s not badmouthing to state the facts.
Mike,
You don’t know that facts. Therefore, you badmouth. You THINK you know the facts.
Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 21 April 1803
To Benjamin Rush
Washington April 21. 1803.
Dear Sir
In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798. 99. which1 served as an Anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then labouring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic: and I then promised you that, one day or other, I would give you my views of it. they are the result of a life of enquiry & reflection, and very different from that Anti-Christian system, imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. to the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human2 excellence, & believing he never claimed any other…
Thomas Jefferson
And he enclosed a syllabus:
Enclosure: Doctrines of Jesus Compared with Others, 21 April 1803
Enclosure
Doctrines of Jesus Compared with Others
Syllabus of an Estimate of the merit of the doctrines
of Jesus, compared with those of others.
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews, and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason, among the antients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of their vulgar, Nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the over1 learned among it’s professors.
Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of antt. philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.
I. Philosophers. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquility of mind.* in this branch of Philosophy they were really great.
2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. they embraced indeed the circles of kindred & friends; and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: towards our neighbors & countrymen, they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. still less have they inculcated peace, charity, & love to our fellow men, or embraced, with benevolence, the whole family of mankind.
II. Jews. 1. Their system was Deism, that is, the belief of one only god. but their ideas of him, & of his attributes, were degrading & injurious.
2. their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcileable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us: & repulsive, & anti-social, as respecting other nations. they needed reformation therefore in an eminent degree.
III. Jesus. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared.
his parentage was obscure, his condition poor, his education null, his natural endowments great, his life correct & innocent; he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, & of the sublimest eloquence.
The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkeable.
1. like Socrates & Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.
2. but he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him.2 on the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in it’s power & riches, were opposed to him, lest his labours should undermine their advantages: and the committing to writing his life & doctrines, fell on the most unlettered, & ignorant of men:3 who wrote too from memory, & not till long after the transactions had passed.
3. according to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy & combination of the altar and the throne; at about 33. years of age,4 his reason having not yet attained the maximum of it’s energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of about 3. years,5 presented occasions for developing a compleat system of morals.6
4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole. and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us, mutilated, mistated, & often unintelligible.
5. they have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Graecian Sophist,7 frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
The question of his being a member of the god-head, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only god, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines relating to kindred & friends were more pure & perfect, than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews.
and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants, and common aids. a developement of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. the precepts of Philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. he pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.
4. he taught, emphatically, the doctrine of a future state: which was either doubted or disbelieved by the Jews: and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.
THOMAS JEFFERSON
—————————————–
These people came from the CHURCH OF ENGLAND…you know, that CHURCH/STATE THEOCRACY that they all ran away from.
Many people, who you call DEISTS believed that the CROOKED STATE CHURCH corrupted Christianity. And many had doubts of the DEITY of Jesus.
Benjamin Franklin said that he doesn’t think that God will PUNISH those who doesn’t believe that Jesus is God, due to this issue.
So there you have it. FACTS PRESENTED. The only thing that the word DEIST means is THE BELIEF IN ONE GOD, and to them, it was THE FATHER ONLY, and why? Because of the CROOKED STATE CHURCH in which they believed had corrupted Christianity.
In addition, regarding slavery, Jefferson said the following:
“…And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.”
Does that sound like an IMPERSONAL God to you? LOL.
Ed Chapman
Once again, you refuse to answer the questions and you go off on a tangent. You do realize that most of the Arminians and Florists on this blog don’t agree with your views on Original Sin.
Mike, in the midst of all your name calling, I think I did see you answer my earlier question about Adam being able to choose. Thanks for answering that. But you neglected the next question: Was Cain able to?
“If you do what is right will you not be accepted?” Could Cain have chosen to not sin?
What did God mean in a post-fall world that he could do right if he wanted to?
I gave you a simple “YES” to your Adam question. “YES” Cain was able to choose. Now it’s your turn. Without a coherent definition of free will we are just talking past each other.
Here are the questions again: Does the ability to choose between good and evil make free will possible? And would you agree with the statement, “Love is impossible without free will”?
Mike,
I don’t really play gotcha games with phrases that can be turned a certain way.
i stick with the Bible. I just wanted to know if you were a Calvinist (Since Calvinist believe that pre fall Adam, choose not choose sin, and post fall Cain could not choose good without God decreeing it so).
Doesn’t look like you are a calvinist so that’s fine.
br.d
It will be interesting to see how Mike answers that – because as far as I know he is in fact a Calvinist
.
However – here is a question:
.
If the doctrine of decrees stipulates – NOTHING HAPPENS within creation that was not knowingly and willing decreed – then isn’t that the case both PRE-FALL as well as POST-FALL?
.
Adam had the exact same “Freewill” (according to the Calvinist definition) Post-fall as he does Pre-FALL
.
As a matter of fact – there is a sense in which Adam did not actually FALL
He simply did what he was infallibly decreed to do.
.
Some Calvinists will make a distinction between a pre-fall and post-fall AS-IF before the fall – there was no infallible decree which determined whatsoever will come to pass.
.
I think Calvin himself would disagree with that!
.
From my understanding – 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is decreed both PRE-FALL and POST_FALL
.
That means – every impulse within every human brain is decreed to infallibly come to pass – starting with Adam.
.
.
blessings
br.d
You know so much about Calvinism, and so analytical. But you refuse to answer these 2 simple questions with a yes or no—as I have done your questions. Once again, for you it’s all about disproving Calvinism rather than clearly presenting your own system.
br.d
Consider the following circumstance.
.
Adam is a college student who is required to take a an exam
All of the questions in the exam are TRUE/FALSE questions
Adam’s brain engages with the first question at TIME_T
.
Now – what does the doctrine of decrees stipulate:
– NOTHING exists or happens within creation that is NOT decreed
– NOTHING exists or happens within creation that is CONTRARY to the decree
.
So – at per that doctrine – a PERCEPTION cannot exist or happen within Adam’s brain – unless that PERCEPTION was decreed
.
So – at TIME_T the PERCEPTION within Adam’s brain – concerning the answer to the question – MUST be fixed by an infallible decree
.
OPTION_A:
It can be decreed – the PERCEPTION granted existence within Adam’s brain – will be that the answer is TRUE
.
In such case – the PERCEPTION that the answer is FALSE is not granted existence within Adam’s brain – because NOTHING can BE or DO OTHERWISE from that which was decreed.
.
The existence of any ALTERNATIVE PERCEPTION within Adam’s brain would falsify the decree
.
OPTION_B:
It can be decreed – the PERCEPTION granted existence within Adam’s brain – will be that the answer is FALSE
.
In such case – the PERCEPTION that the answer is TRUE is not granted existence within Adam’s brain – because NOTHING can BE or DO OTHERWISE from that which was decreed.
.
The existence of any ALTERNATIVE PERCEPTION within Adam’s brain would falsify the decree
.
.
FACT:
The human brain cannot CHOOSE something which it cannot PERCEIVE.
.
In OPTION_A
Adam’s brain cannot PERCEIVE the answer is FALSE
Thus Adam’s brain cannot choose FALSE as the answer
.
in OPTION_B
Adam’s brain cannot PERCEIVE the answer is TRUE
Thus Adam’s brain cannot choose TRUE as the answer
.
IN BOTH CASES:
Adam’s brain is not permitted the ability to choose TRUE from FALSE because the decree INFALLIBLY EXCLUDES one or the other.
.
CONCLUSION:
Adam is not granted a choice between TRUE and FALSE because the doing so would falsify Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees
.
.
TYPICAL CALVINIST RESPONSE TO THIS CONSEQUENCE OF THE DOCTRINE
.
The typical Calvinist response to this consequence of his doctrine – is rejection.
What is he rejecting?
.
He is rejecting the EXHAUSTIVE nature of the decree – according to the doctrine.
.
.
blessings
br.d
I’m perfectly willing to talk to you about philosophy and free will theory once you answer yes or no to my questions—as I have done yours!
If you are afraid of a “gotcha” then this is proof that you really don’t understand the things you are talking about. The foundation of the Arminian, Florist and Free Will Theist theology is a clear definition and understanding of free will. If you are unable to answer these simple and obvious questions—as I have done your questions—then you need to do more study. The Bible defines free will as “choice,” that’s it. Everyone believes humans have the ability to choose, even Calvinists. And, yes, I am a Calvinist.
I’ve been watching this debate go on for a couple of days now and quite enjoyed it. I googled arguments for and against Calvinism to get some kind of insight on both sides. It was originally because a good friend of mine has felt deeply uncomfortable about Calvinism and most of its tenets. Oh by the way, this is a reply to all and no one in particular.
So anyway, I consider myself a Christian and not a Calvinist as I already have a Saviour in Jesus Christ. Secondly, but in no particular order, the idea of God creating the elect to be saved and, presumably (?) every other human being who isn’t of the elect is damned to hell for nothing either group do or can do anything about either, sounds completely unjust and without love. I don’t see anything in scripture that backs double predestination up. Thirdly, ultra protestant societies in Europe and where they went to the US and South Africa tended to have divisions and serious conflicts either from the start or eventually that became deeply entrenched. Apartheid? American racism? The extreme class systems of NW Europe? Fourthly, just where does the cut off of predestination begin and end? Is it only in Christian communities, is it in effect for the nation of Israel before Christ’s birth, what about child deaths, still births? When does a child become old enough if not predestined for heaven, to be cast into hell for nothing that child has done? I’m sorry, but I could go on and on here and fire salvos at Calvinism and Calvinist thoughts and beliefs. I am beginning to believe that it is a heresy that really holds no water and opposes God’s merciful and loving character.
Final question to anyone holding to Calvinism and saying they are a Calvinist, how do you know just because you are, again presumably, a devout believing Calvinist that you are actually one of the elect?
I appreciated your post here Timbo
.
You might want to check out the work of Dr. Kenneth M Wilson
.
TITLE:
Augustine’s conversion from traditional “FREE CHOICE” to a “NOT-FREE” freewill”
A comprehensive analysis of Augustine’s writings in chronological order revealing sequences of Augustine’s theological evolution.
.
.
SUMMARY:
Augustine was heavily influenced by Gnostic and Platonic doctrines.
– DUALISM is a characteristic of Gnostic doctrine
– The delineating line between “Good” and “Evil” is breached because “Evil” becomes a NECESSARY COMPLIMENT for “Good” They are Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary
.
Dr, Wilson concludes – DUALISM is the Gnostic component within Calvinism which Christians generally have a problem with.
Christians generally see Calvin’s god as unfair and unkind because he creates the vast majority of the human population specifically for torment for his good pleasure.
.
What Christians don’t realize – is the source of this component of Calvinism is Gnostic DUALISM
.
Determinism:
Both Gnostic doctrines – as well as Platonic doctrines (doctrines of Plotinus) are Deterministic
.
So it makes sense – if Augustine mixed Gnostic and Platonic doctrines into Christian doctrine – DUALISM and DETERMINISM are what we will observe.
.
So DUALISM and DETERMINISM will be the components within Calvinism which Christians will generally object to
.
blessings
br.d
Mike,
Sticking with Scripture we see that there are about 1600 “If-then” conditional statements from the Lord in the Bible.
Why?
There are over 3000 times (including the above) that God offers a choice to people.
Why?
Did they REALLY have a choice? I mean could Cain REALLY have chosen to dominate over the sin crouching at his door?
What did Samuel mean when he said to Saul (on God’s behalf) “…if you had [kept the command of the Lord] He would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time.”?
Was God lying? “I knew you wouldnt do it all the time Saul.” In fact, why does a deterministic God EVER say the words “I would have”? I mean, it makes it sound so much like God is waiting to see what Saul (or Israel, or David, or Abraham) is gonna choose before He make His next move. You may think that it is terrible for me to say such a thing, but dont you have to at least be honest and ask yourself why God made things APPEAR so conditional (if so Calvinistically not true).
If Cain REALLY could have chosen otherwise, and Israel REALLY could have chosen to follow the Lord (see then entire book of Judges), and David did have a real choice between 3 choices of discipline, then we do have REAL choice and God is not Calvinistically determining all things, or in fact most things.
Curiously, the Calvinists I observe (for instance James White, Paul Helm) feel that all things (everything) is determined by God.
This leads one to the position that at the end of the day, lying on your bed, you can be sure that when you abused that other person, lied, cheated, stole, or gave in to pornograpy or extra-marital sex, that it was indeed God’s will. Sleep in peace; your sin was God’s decree.
Is that your position? Or do you believe that people (both believing and non-believing) can make both good and bad choices unforced by God?
unforced by God…..
.
Here is where the Calvinist has the upper hand and will win this argument.
.
IT is called Calvinism’s NO FORCE argument
.
HOWEVER! Calvinism’s NO FORCE argument is designed to be deceptive.
.
.
HERE IS HOW IT WORKS:
.
Consider two men are arm wrestling
.
Person_A is applying FORCE against Person_B
Person_B is applying FORCE against Person_A
.
However – this is ONLY LOGICALLY VIABLE – where it is the case that Person__B is granted AUTONOMY from Person_A.
.
If Person_A determines the impulses that will be granted existence within Person_B’s brain and body
Then Person_B’s brain and body are essentially functioning as an EXTENSION of Person_A
.
The concept of FORCE does not apply
Because there is NO AUTONOMY sufficient to require the use of FORCE.
.
If I determine every impulse that will be granted existence within your brain and body – I don’t have to use FORCE to get you to do what I want.
.
I can MAKE you sin – as much as I want to – and you have NO SAY in the matter.
.
This is the case with Calvinism
.
Calvin’s god does not need to use FORCE to get Adam to eat the forbidden fruit
Calvin’s god simply did not not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE impulse within Adam’s brain or body.
.
.
However – you are correct – in your analysis that humans are not granted any CHOICE in Calvinism
Simply because NO ALTERNATIVE OPTION is ever granted existence
Thus – there is never any ALTERNATIVE OPTION which exists for a human to choose.
.
NO ALTERNATIVE = NO CHOICE
.
.
blessings
br.d
You seem to know exactly what free will is, so why can’t you answer my 2 questions?
Again – it is critical to understand – so that people are not misled by misleading language
.
Calvinists create their own SPECIALIZED definitions for a labyrinth of terms such as “Permit”, “Freedom”, “Freewill”, “Option”, “Choice”…..etc
.
And when Calvinists use these terms in sentences – they give no indication that ALTERED definitions or meanings are being used.
.
.
A FEW HELPFUL QUOTES:
.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
In the Calvinist view, God MOVES your will to pull the trigger and use the weapon.
In that case I think it is difficult to see how you do so freely because you’re causally determined to do it.
The most the Calvinist can affirm is, as I said, a sort of compatibilist view of freedom where freedom is compatible with being causally determined.
.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN of each of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
.
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is immediately operative in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and in every instance THE IMPULSE TO ACTION precedes from god (Systematic Theology)
.
.
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism – you are granted FREEDOM to BE/DO ONLY THAT WHICH WAS DECREED
You are NOT granted FREEDOM to BE/DO OTHERWISE
.
.
THUS
1. Adam was granted FREEDOM to [EAT] because [EAT] is compatible with determinism—by virtue of being the determined act.
.
2. Also – the impulse to [EAT] is granted FREEDOM within Adam’s brain – because that impulse is compatible with determinism – by virtue of being the determined impulse.
.
THE CONTRA-POSITIVE :
.
You already know Libertarian FREEDOM is NOT compatible with determinism – because it would entail the ability to “Do Otherwise” from that which was determined.
.
THUS:
.
3. Adam was NOT granted FREEDOM to [NOT EAT] because [NOT EAT] is not compatible with determinism—not being the determined act. (i.e., it would require doing otherwise than what was determined).
.
4. The impulse within Adam’s brain was NOT granted FREEDOM to come to pass within Adam’s brain – because it is not compatible with determinism – not being the impulse which was determined.
.
.
blessings
br.d
All this is just evasion and bluster. I’m not asking about how Calvinists define free will I’m asking you how you define free will. So, just answer my questions and then we can have a constructive two-sided conversation.
Oh, and you finally acknowledge my referring to WLC but you refuse to deal with the fact that he disagrees with you about alternative possibilities and that he’s a Molinist. As for all these Calvinist quotes, wouldn’t it be easier to just answer my 2 questions then to barrage me with all these out of context quotes you got from ChatGPT?
Mike – I’ve already explained to you my understanding.
.
1) On determinism – the perceptions in your brain are not TRUTH-BASED – they are DECREE-BASED
.
2) You PERCEIVE [X] to be TRUE – not because it is – but because that is the PERCEPTION which was decreed for your brain to have.
.
3) Every FALSE PERCEPTION within your brain is fixed by an infallible decree which cannot be countervailed
.
4) As long as the decree is in effect – your brain cannot PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
.
5) Therefore – for every FALSE PERCEPTION – your brain cannot deviate from the decree in order to discern it.
.
6) An infallible decree determines your brain see all FALSE PERCEPTIONS as TRUE
.
That is called divine sovereignty over the human brain
But you don’t really believe in divine sovereignty over your brain
You believe your brain is MAGICALLY free from the infallible decree which determines your brain to PERCEIVE FALSE PERCEPTIONS as TRUE
.
Your mechanism for escaping the consequences of Determinism – MAGICAL THINKING
You live *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE
You claim to hold to Determinism ONLY as a THEORY
.
You live *AS-IF* Your brain is granted Libertarian Choice.
.
I don’t have the conflict which you have
I don’t have a belief that is in contradiction to the way I live.
.
I don’t have explanations for Libertarian Choice beyond that.
I’m just glad by brain is not determined to infallibly PERCEIVE all FALSE PERCEPTIONS as TRUE like your brain is :-]
I’m glad my brain is granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE
.
.
blessings
br.d
BR.D, Because you refuse to answer my 2 simple questions with a yes or no, and would rather fire-hose me with all your wonderful knowledge, you are showing me that you are not interested in a proper back and forth dialogue. You (or was it your people, I can’t even keep track of it anymore) asked me to answer 2 simple questions: Did Adam have free will? and Did Cain have a choice? I answered bother with a simple “yes.” But you refuse to do the same to my questions. I’m not sure why, but the double standard is telling.
You say “I don’t have the conflict which you have. I don’t have a belief that is in contradiction to the way I live.” You say this after a barge of verbiage that assumes that you know my views without the least bit of interest in finding out what I actually believe. And when I bring up the fact that your own free will theist PHD philosopher apologists don’t agree with you, you are surprisingly silent.
And then you put out a slew of quotes to the group from philosophers who support LFW that you got from ChatGPT. Well, I can go on ChatGPT and get just as many quotes from philosophers who will counter LFW and support Compatibilism.
You have shown your true colours. You are not interested in investigating the truth. You don’t want a dialogue, you want a monologue. So I give you what you want… you have the last word.
mike:
you are showing me that you are not interested in a proper back and forth dialogue.
.
br.d
Per your position – that is the perception which is currently coming to pass within your brain by an infallible decree which determines your brain to have FALSE perceptions which it does not permit your brain to discern.
.
And the statement you are currently making is likely to be an infallibly decreed falsehood which your brain is not granted the ability to discern.
.
You cannot speak with authority – because divine sovereignty does not permit your brain to know if the current thought is not an infallibly decree falsehood.
.
How would you ever be able know when that is the case?
You can’t know – because you can’t countervail an infallible decree
.
The perception of salvation within your brain is also likely to be an infallibly decreed false perception
.
What are you to do?
.
Cross your fingers and hope for the best!
.
But then again – your brain’s perception of “Best” may also be an infallibly decreed false perception
.
As long as the decree is in effect – your brain cannot perceive otherwise.
.
.
I have enough problems in my life – I’m glad I don’t have that one!!! :-]
.
.
blessings
Mike,
What philosopher invented or created the term, or catch phrase called “Compatibilism”? Who is it attributed to. Who defined it first? Who came up with the idea? What is is origin?
Why do you have to have different kinds of free will… one wasn’t enough, so now you have to title them with an adjective? Compatibilism or LFW? What’s up with that? Free will isn’t enough? It has to have an adjective, like grace does with preveniant and irresistible?
I’m always amused at Catholics that has “mortal sin”, too. What’s that? Sin isn’t enough? Gotta title it?
Dude, if you gotta use an adjective, there’s probably something not quite right!
Ed
Ed
br.d
The embryonic concept of “Compatibilism” first appears with the Ancient Stoics.
.
Stanford Encyclopedia (Free Will)
-quote
Stoics believed that all human choice and behavior was causally determined, but held that this was compatible with our actions being ‘up to us’.
.
Augustine was substantially influenced by Stoicism, particularly through Cicero, who was his major source for Hellenistic philosophy.
.
Augustine was significantly influenced by the Catholic bishop Ambrose of Milan – who embraced doctrines of Plotinus
.
So when a Calvinist points a finger of accusation at someone and accuses them of PHILOSOPHY that Calvinist has 10 fingers and 10 toes pointing back at himself :-]
.
Augustine transitioned from Stoic concepts – to doctrines taught by a Greek philosopher (Plotinus)
Augustine is said to never have departed from the doctrines of Plotinus
And it is said Augustine recited Plotinus on his death bed
.
Plato was held in very high regard by many Catholic intellectuals in Augustine’s day
.
Calvin for example – gets his doctrine if divine immutability from Plato
.
br.d,
Well, there ya go! Augustine, who invented Original Sin as well. That guy ruined Christianity as it was meant to be. I wonder if he had anything to do with the Catholic doctrine about divorce, too.
Well, seems that he does:
“Augustine’s Contribution
The Sacrament of Marriage:
Augustine argued in works like On the Good of Marriage that marriage is an indissoluble sacrament that creates an inseparable union dissolvable only by death.
Prohibition of Remarriage:
While some contemporaries and early traditions allowed for separation or even remarriage under extreme circumstances like adultery, Augustine fiercely insisted that remarriage was forbidden for anyone while the original spouse was alive, even for the innocent party.
Medieval Consensus:
Augustine’s strict theological framework heavily influenced later medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas and eventually became the official standard for Western Canon Law.”
And people ate it all up, hook, line, and sinker. And they regard him as some kind of religious guru? Ughhh. And those who oppose are considered HERETICS.
Ed Chapman
Yes – as a matter of fact – if I remember – Mike used to have a fondness for Thomas Aquinas
I think that might have been a year or two ago
.
What I find interesting:
Calvinist_A will observe certain events and say “It was decreed – and I accept what has been decreed”
Calvinist_B will observe the same events (e.g. Mike’s interactions here) and say “I am not happy with what has been decreed”
.
So one Calvinist will accept what has been decreed – and another Calvinist will not.
I see Calvinists complaining all the time about what Calvin’s god decrees – *AS-IF* events and human actions could have been otherwise – or should be otherwise than what was decreed.
.
I guess its all a part of the Calvinist PUPPET SHOW!
.
Each Calvinist PUPPET has a different role to play in the show!!
.
I’m glad we SOT101 PUPPETS were decreed to have a good sense of humor! 😀
Ed,
I came across a Youtube video today – I didn’t know if you would be interested in.
.
The title of it is: How To Debate a Calvinist (If You Must)
.
Kevin Thompson – details many of the subtle tricks Calvinists use to manipulate people without them realizing they are being manipulated.
.
.
Within that discussion – is how Calvinists manipulate scripture to make it APPEAR to confirm their system.
.
Just in case you might find it interesting
.
blessings
br.d
HOW CALVINISTS REDEFINE THE CONCEPT OF CHOICE
.
A Calvinist and a Non-Calvinist are sitting at a table
.
On the table is a card which is called [X]
.
Calvinist:
You have a choice between [X] and [NOT X]
You are free to choose either one
However – you are incapable of choosing [NOT X]
.
Non-Calvinist:
WAIT! There is no [NOT X] card on the table!
.
Calvinist:
It isn’t there – it does not exist because its existence would countervail an infallible decree.
.
Non-Calvinist:
Can I obtain it?
.
Calvinist:
NO
.
Non-Calvinist:
Can I cause it to appear?
.
Calvinist:
NO
.
Non-Calvinist:
Could it appear if I chose it?
.
Calvinist:
NO
.
Non-Calvinist:
Then how do I have a choice between contrary options [X] and [NOT X] when one of those options does not exist for me to choose……where that option is not available to me – and is not accessible to me?
.
I don’t REALLY have a choice after all
If it is decreed I take [X] – then the option for me to DO OTHERWISE does not exist
I don’t actually HAVE a choice between [X] and [NOT X]
What you have done is create an ALTERED definition for the word “Choice”
You claim people are granted choices for things which do not exist for them to choose
.
Calvinist:
We do not conform to NORMAL human understandings.
Our understandings are divine
Oh my Mike,
This thread and dozens like it on this site are full of the conversations about “The bondage of will” “libertarian free will” “‘free’ to do good, but ‘lacking the ability’ to do good,” and “total depravity.”
You know where we differ.
You say this invention of “total depravity” means that man is “free” not to sin (or free to choose good and choose God), just “incapable.” Of course that is non-sensical to us. And we also posit that this is illogical even to the Calvinist position. Calvinism says that God created the majority of humanity for eternal punishment before the foundations of the world.
They are created for wrath and destruction by God. So, not really “free” to chose much, right? Adding “just incapable” changes nothing, really. Oh…I get it! That is why you could answer that Cain was “free” to not sin (while muttering quietly, “Free…but incapable.”
That is why I assumed you were not a Calvinist, cuz you said that Cain was free to not sin. What I did not hear (under your breath) was you adding the phrase “just incapable.” So if that is your schtick…. I mean if your gotcha game to me is to always say “free, just incapable,” then I give. You win!
We hear Calvinists say that God invites all but only some does He invite efficaciously. Not much of an invitation. No parent would do that to a kid, say, “you are invited to this party!!!” and then make it impossible for the child to come….while still pretending to invite him! How cynical is that?
He tells us to love everyone, but Calvinists declare that He does not.
To thousands in the crowd Jesus said, “Seek first the kingdom of God.” But Calvinism tell us that He didnt really mean it since they can’t seek anyway.
Jesus says to “have faith in God.” Many places the Bible talks about Abraham’s faith. Hebrews 11 is dedicated to show the faith of non-Jews, pagans, and Jews. And yet……Calvinists, knowing better than what simple readers know, come along and say, “Yes, He tells you to have faith, but you can’t; He has to give it to you.”
Calvinism is its own worst enemy.
That reminds me of R.C. Sproul saying “god dragged me kicking and screaming into Calvinism”
.
Notice how that statement paints a picture of AUTONOMY granted to the human brain.
.
Why would Calvin’s god decree impulses within Sproul’s brain to make him kick and scream??????
.
OH! I know – — – – – – its all part of the PUPPET SHOW
.
We need the puppet to kick and scream – to give the APPEARANCE its not a puppet!
.
The Calvinist brain reminds me of a radio-controlled car. 😀
.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen more DOUBLE-SPEAK than what comes out of Calvinists!!!
Mike,
I’m reminded of the movie, “MY COUSIN VINNY”, …it’s a TRICK QUESTION.
You have HOW MANY types of FREE WILL in your religion? And how did you come up with each?
Ed
Mike: “Was Adam truly able to choose between good and evil?” YES.
.
br.d
Well – there you have two things which are logically and humanly impossible
.
1) You have Adam being granted a choice to do something which an infallible decree does not grant existence to
You are granting a creature – the option of countervailing an infallible decree
What you have there is called MAGICAL THINKING :-]
.
.
2) In order for Adam to refrain from eating – would entail an impulse within his brain to refrain from eating
The existence of that impulse would also countervail an infallible decree
Another example of MAGICAL THINKING
..
CONCLUSION:
You have an infallible decree which grants creatures the option of countervailing it
.
I’d like to see you countervailing an infallible decree!
Can you please provide an example of you doing that! 😀
.
What a hoot!
You ask for a RATIONAL explanation – but what you really want – is a MAGICAL explanation
.
That is why Calvinism has had a perennial reputation for DOUBLE-SPEAK
DOUBLE-SPEAK is the outward expression of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
.
.
blessings
br.d
Mike – there is another impossibility which you MAGICALLY have
.
You have the existence of an ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITY in a world in which ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES do not exist.
.
You are granting the existence of an ALTERNATIVE from that which was decreed – when very existence of any ALTERNATIVE would falsify the decree.
.
.
CONCLUSION:
You have an infallible decree which is only infallible when you want it to be.
You are the DETERMINER of when the decree is infallible and when it is not infallible!
.
.
You say I am not “Studied”
But what you mean by the word “Studied” is AUTO-MAGICALLY accepting Calvinist TALKING-POINTS
.
The good news is – you have provided examples of how RATIONAL reasoning collapses in Calvinism.
Calvinism is a system of SACRED TALKING-POINTS which the Calvinist mind is conditioned to blindly accept.
.
The Calvinist uses words like “RATIONAL” and “LOGICAL” as cosmetics – which they use to create a FACADE of RATIONAL thinking.
.
I am glad I am not “Studied” in that! :-]
.
.
blessings
br.d
HOW CALVINISTS SPEAK A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE
.
Dr. David Allen (Professor of Practical Theology )
-quote
Calvinists have the same vocabulary as everyone but they have a different dictionary
.
CALVINISM AND HUMAN CHOICE-MAKING
.
If you think you are having a rational dialog with a Calvinist about any topic – you probably do not recognize the fact – he has radically different definitions for words.
.
There are ALTERED and frequently CLOAKED meanings which Calvinists assign to words such as: “choice,” “freedom,” “could,” “option,” “desire,” and “will.”
.
THE CALVINIST PREMISE:
– Calvin’s god decrees [X], and that decree being infallible guarantees that [X] and only [X] will occur.
.
If the decree is genuinely infallible, then:
– [X] will infallibly occur.
.
thus:
– [NOT-X] cannot occur while the decree remains.
.
This creates an immediate question about human choice.
.
If Adam will [EAT] is established by infallible decree – and Adam will [NOT EAT] cannot occur while the decree remains – does [NOT EAT] exist as a genuine option for Adam to choose?
.
CHOICE IN THE NORMAL DEFINITION:
.
For NORMAL people – a person has a choice – when two or more genuinely possible alternatives exist and are available from which the person can select.
.
KJV Dictionary (choice)
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things.
.
Dictionary-com (choice)
An act or instance of choosing; selection: an ALTERNATIVE
.
The Free Dictionary (choice)
The act of choosing; selection – a NUMBER OR VARIETY from which to choose.
.
Collins Dictionary (choice)
If there is a choice of THINGS, there are SEVERAL OF THEM and you can choose the one you want.
Your choice is someone or something that you choose from a RANGE OF THINGS.
.
Oxford Learners Dictionary (choice)
An act of choosing between TWO OR MORE possibilities
.
Longman Dictionary (choice)
If you have a choice, you can choose BETWEEN SEVERAL THINGS
.
.
THE CALVINIST MUST REDEFINE THE WORD CHOICE:
.
Obviously – the NORMAL meaning of the word “Choice” is not going to work within Calvinism – because there is never any instance in which TWO OR MORE possibilities exist for anything within creation.
.
So if the Calvinist is going to use the word “Choice” he has to give it an ALTERED meaning which allows him to claim humans are granted the function of “Choice”
.
The Calvinist compatibilist redefinition of the term “Choice” can instead be:
– An impulse which comes to pass within the human brain infallibly – and which results in a desire or inclination – but which is not produced by external coercion.
.
The human brain is not granted “Foreknowledge” and thus not granted “Foresight” of what impulses will infallibly come to pass within it.
.
A significant percentage of impulses will infallibly come to pass within the human brain outside of the brain’s awareness.
Obviously – the human brain is granted NO SAY, and NO CHOICE, and NO CONTROL in the matter of these.
.
But what about the impulses which the brain is granted awareness of?
.
In Calvinism – all impulses come to pass infallibly – having been determined by antecedent factors totally outside of the brains control.
.
And when the brain is granted awareness of a given impulse – that impulse is coming to pass infallibly – and the human brain cannot change or alter anything that is infallible.
.
Thus – in Calvinism – impulses happen within the human brain – in which the brain is granted NO SAY, NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL.
.
That process – is then labeled a “Choice”
.
.
CALVINIST REDEFINE THE WORD “COULD”
The question will be asked – where it is decreed Adam will infallibly [EAT] “could” Adam do otherwise?
.
Here the Calvinist must redefine the term “Could” to make it fit within his system.
.
The Calvinist will say: Adam “Could” [NOT EAT] – if the impulse within Adam’s brain (aka desires, inclinations etc) had been decreed as such.
.
What the Calvinist is doing here – is creating an APPEARANCE that things which exist within the foundation of the world – exist also within creation.
.
Alternative possibilities exist within the domain of the foundation of the world.
But in Calvinism – they do not exist within the domain of creation.
.
.
CALVINISTS REDEFINE THE WORD OPTION:
The Calvinist will say: “Adam had the option to [NOT EAT].”
.
But what does the word “option” mean?
There are a number of Calvinist definitions here:
.
– Adam understood [NOT-EAT] as something he was commanded to do.
or
– The impulse to [NOT-EAT] could have happened within Adam’s brain – if it has been decreed.
or
– [NOT EAT] as a genuine and available option which existed for Adam – was decreed as a perception within Adam’s brain.
.
.
CONCLUSION:
Calvinist compatibilism adopts ALTERED and frequently CLOAKED definitions for many terms.
.
These definitions are crafted to avoid requiring metaphysically genuine alternative possibilities.
.
When we start to recognize – all of the terms we are using in our dialog with Calvinists have been given ALTERED and/or CLOAKED meanings – then we need to stop and recognize we are not talking about the same concepts.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Mike asks…”To have true libertarian free will must you be able to choose between good and evil?”
Again, I do not use adjectives for “free will” It’s not BORIS THE ANIMAL, IT’S JUST BORIS!
And in order to have free will, you must have OPTIONS. If good and evil are options, then YES, you have FREE WILL to choose which one you want for dinner! Soup or Salad!
I mean, seriously, dude, really? You can’t figure this out? It’s so simple, it’s all ball bearings these days (from the movie FLETCH)!
Ed
STRATEGIC OMISSION IN REFORMED CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS
.
Concerning Calvinist creeds and confessions – it is critical to understand there are specific language patterns which are consistent in them.
.
One highly consistent language pattern found within Calvinist creeds and confessions is strategic omission.
.
Consider the situation in which a young boy witnesses his older brother pick up a gun and shoot and kill his wife.
.
The younger brothers confession is “My brother saw his wife get shot”
.
Here we have the difference between a technically true statement and a materially misleading description.
.
The statement the younger brother made is literally true.
But if the younger brother knows his older brother shot his wife – his statement strategically directs the listener toward a false understanding of what happened.
.
The omitted fact isn’t incidental; it is causally central to the event being described.
.
An example of strategic omission in Calvinism language would be the statements
“God leaves sinners in their sins”
or
“God passes by the reprobate”
.
The fuller account which is strategically omitted:
.
Calvin’s god decrees every impulse within every human brain → decrees the reprobation of humans → decrees the circumstances and causal history to infallibly occur → decrees the withholding of any alternative options → decrees the person’s destiny as infallibly fated.
.
.
The problem with Calvinism’s language of strategics omission – is that it is language which presents one true aspect of the causal account while omitting other aspects which materially changes how the listener understands Calvin’s god’s role in evil events.
.
Calvinist statements deliberately allow false understanding through strategic omissions because the fuller picture is calculated to be unpalatable and therefore omitted.
.
A statement can be literally true while being intentionally constructed to conceal the most relevant causal facts.
.
The problem with Calvinist creeds and confessions isn’t that they are false on a technical basis.
The problem is that a carefully selected half-truths are presented as the whole truth.
.
This language pattern is very similar to lies of omission.
.
The language is strategically misleading because it is carefully designed to suppress the qualifications necessary to understand the whole truth.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Mike,
The philosophers of “LIBERTARIAN” free will are making their claims BASED ON the concept of an INHERITED CORRUPTED SIN NATURE. In short, ORIGINAL SIN!
I don’t believe in Original sin, therefore I don’t believe in an inherited sin nature, therefore you can cross out the word “libertarian” and then all you have left is FREE WILL, without the adjective.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed,
I don’t see that as being correct.
.
Libertarian Choice is and was historically a concept held by people who were not Christian believers.
.
IMHO
These concepts of Determinism and Libertarian Choice have NON-Christian origins – and are eventually adopted by Christian thinkers.
.
Calvin – for example – gets his concept of divine immutability from the writings of Plato.
.
Augustine was highly influenced by the writings of Cicero. Plato, and especially doctrines originating from a Greek philosopher Plotinus (c. 204–270 CE)
.
Prior to this time of his life – Augustine is highly influenced by Gnosticism.
.
Both Gnosticism and Platonism incorporate DETERMINISM.
.
The historical origins of DETERMINISM are often traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, particularly the atomists such as Democritus and Leucippus.
.
.
The current day formulation of COMPATIBILISM adopted by Calvinism – also has its origins from the same source.
br.d
Ya I caught that after I sent it. But, Calvinism does have a free will that does not have anything to do with sin at all. Hence, their adjective.
br.d – well – perhaps we could say that is kinda the case.
.
What Calvinists adopt currently is called “Compatibilism”
.
Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
.
It is a very simple concept – which states – Everything must be COMPATIBLE with what was determined
.
Now in Calvinism – Determinism is EXHAUSTIVE – which means everything without exception is determined.
.
1) The decree determines everything within creation
2) Therefore NOTHING can exist or happen within creation which is INCOMPATIBLE with the infallible decree
.
So concerning free-will
1) Adam was granted FREEDOM the [EAT] because [EAT] is COMPATIBLE with what was decreed
.
2) Adam is NOT granted FREEDOM to [NOT EAT] because [NOT EAT] is NOT COMPATIBLE with what was decreed
.
That which is NOT COMPATIBLE with what was decreed – is not granted existence.
.
.
Calvinists have not been academically honest with this definition however
.
J.P. Moreland
-quote
“Compatibilism” has been altered and shifted away from the its original focus on what kinds of creaturely FREEDOM exist within Determinism – into a focus on moral responsibility.
.
Peter van Inwagen
-quote
Whatever you do, don’t use “Compatibilism” as a name for the thesis that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism. This can only cause confusion. If you must have a name for the thesis that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism – please invent a new name. (Thinking About Free Will, p. 152)
.
Dr. Carolina Sartorio
-quote
The correct definition of Compatibilism – is that it is the thesis that Determinism is Compatible with Free Will ( Do we have free will – a debate P.203)
So, according to Google AI, Calvinism believes that Adam had free will to choose evil or good.
But…the T in Total depravity, is completely dependent on the fall, or, as I like to say, Original Sin, in which no one is able to choose good after the fall.
Therefore, Original Sin is still the culprit no matter how you slice the tomato.
Remove Original Sin, and the Total Depravity falls flat. So does IRRESISTIBLE GRACE.
Free will remains
Ed
br.d
Yes – this is part of the Calvinist practice of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
.
There are two critical understandings concerning human choice
.
1) HAVING a choice
2) MAKING a choice
.
The NORMAL conception by NORMAL people – is that one cannot MAKE a choice – if one does not HAVE a choice to make.
.
I cannot MAKE a choice to deposit 20 trillion dollars in my bank account – because I don’t HAVE 20 trillion dollars.
.
Calvinists skip over the part where the person does not actually HAVE a choice to make – and they simply claim the person MADE a choice – even when the person did not HAVE that choice to make
.
.
QUESTION:
In Calvinism did the option for Adam to [NOT EAT] exist for Adam to choose?
.
ANSWER:
1) If the decree is exhaustive:
– Nothing exists or occurs unless decreed.
.
2) If the decree is efficacious:
– Everything decreed to exist/occur does exist/occur.
.
3) Therefore:
– What is decreed is granted to exist and to occur.
.
4) And conversely:
– What is NOT DECREED is NOT GRANTED to exist or occur.
.
CONCLUSION:
The option for Adam to [NOT EAT] being CONTRARY to the decree – did not exist for Adam – because it was NOT GRANTED to exist or occur
.
Since the option for Adam to [NOT EAT] did not exist and was not available to Adam – then it did not exist as an option for Adam to choose.
.
.
Calvinists have an obsessive emotional reaction against this consequence of their doctrine
Human choice-making is recognized as a critical aspect of NORMAL human agency.
Mike,
I meant to say “compatabalist” free will.
No, you meant to say “compatibilist” free will.
Mike,
Thanks for the spellcheck!