Often wrapped up in a discussion of Total Depravity and Total Inability is a discussion of free will.
Though it is variously stated, most Calvinists believe that humans do not have a free will.
Some argue that humanity did have a free will before Adam and Eve rebelled against God and fell into sin by eating fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Others argue that a form of free will is awakened in the minds of the Christian. What almost all agree on, however, is that no unregenerate person has free will. Of course, even here, you will occasionally run across a Calvinist who claims to believe that unregenerate people have a free will, but that the free will of unregenerate people is only a free will to do evil. That is, though they can choose of their own free will to do what they want, their choices are only between various forms of evil, and they cannot choose to do any good.
Calvinism and Free Will
Here are some Calvinist quotes about Free will:
Free will is nonsense (Spurgeon, Free Will a Slave, 3).
Free will is the invention of man, instigated by the devil (David Wilmoth, The Baptist Examiner, September 16, 1989, 5).
Free will makes man his own savior and his own god (Tom Ross, Abandoned Truth, 56).
The heresy of free will dethrones God and enthrones man. … The ideas of free grace and free will are diametrically opposed. All who are strict advocates of free will are strangers to the grace of the sovereign God (W. E. Best, Free Grace Versus Free Will, 35, 43).
To affirm that [man] is a free moral agent is to deny that he is totally depraved (Pink, Sovereignty of God, 138).
In matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will… As the bird with a broken wing is ‘free’ to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able (Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 62).
Inasmuch as Adam’s offspring are born with sinful natures, they do not have the ability to choose spiritual good over evil. Consequently, man’s will is no longer free (i.e., free from the dominion of sin) as Adam’s will was free before the Fall. Instead, man’s will, as the result of inherited depravity, is in bondage to his sinful nature (Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism, 19).
What are your thoughts on free will? Does it exist? Does it not? If it does, how can we have free will and God remain sovereign? If free will does not exist, how can we avoid the charge of fatalism or determinism?
If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.
I compare Boettner’s statement to, “I’m underage. I can have Coke or Pepsi or Mountain Dew or any soda I want, but I want beer. Hence free will’s an illusion.”
No: Your options are limited. But you still have them.
They do not understand that God is capable of doing His plan even with human free will…they think that having a free will negates prophecy. How puny is the Lord of Heaven to a Calvinist.
If our notion of free will is the ability to chose to do what is good without the impediments of desire, fear or ignorance, then Calvin is right. But by that definition nobody has free will, not even the devout.
Alternatively, if we apply a more liberal definition and suppose that free will is synonymous with freedom of choice, then surely this is the better stab: the true servants of God are those who tirelessly and unremittingly do and have done His will; the worthless are those who think for themselves. Free will is only for those who don’t go by the book.
Personally, I think both positions a little extreme, but it’s a very complex and confusing philosophical theme. All I know is that I wouldn’t like to have absolute free will, nor would I like to absolutely lose it.
Dennis, Yes, that is true. How much greater is God when His will and plan can still be accomplished, even with human free will!
When we try to limit God’s power to letting our “free will” supercede his plan to bring all into him thru Yeshua we make Him too punny. I have realized that and it really blows my mind to even get a bit of a sense of how his Love wins all!
we are free and we do have a will but the point is we are sinful and cannot on our own do anything offer anything to God that he can use if we were left to ourselves everyone would go to hell because we are dead spiritually
Does God have free will?
What a wonderful question. it may explain why I don’t have a red Ferrari.
Let us apply the Calvinists rather exacting requirements: one must be free from desire, fear and ignorance. While no finite creature can reach such lofty heights, God who is absolutely self-sufficient most surely can.
Of course, that hasn’t stopped us from seeking to bind Him with human sacrifice, incantations, and legal covenants. If God has free will we better get everything agreed in writing.
It is a wonderful question, for sure. But on consideration, it appears meaningless. Will and desire both require an object, but since everything is contained in God, God already “has” everything you can possibly think of, as well as everything you can’t, including will and desire, all possible objects of will and desire, all things one might want to be free from, and all imaginable freedoms. It’s a paradox that comes from trying to describe God in objective terms – which is the only way we can talk about anything.
We are not left to ourselves. God brings illumination/light to the world (kosmos).
God is the initiator(first Mover) and finisher of our faith, and after The Light has been Initiated, all mankind Is able to respond to the Grace call.
I have wondered this for a long time — why do they think that making God into a puppet-master makes him greater than a God who can bring about His highest good amidst our freedom? Clavinists have a love affair with autocracy
All people have free will. The issue is not with the will, but with the ~spirit~ of man. The spirit of an unregenerate man is dead. If that man chooses to do any of the works of a regenerate believer in Jesus, he can–from his dead spirit and from his natural soul, ultimately from a source of fleshly self-pride. The difference is not in the will, but in the condition of the spirit–alive or dead, connected to God’s Spirit or not connected to God’s Spirit.
One of the great errors of theologians is to trust their own theories and logical ideas rather than the Word of God and the Spirit of God. God did not say that, in the day that you eat of it you will no longer have free will, but rather, in the day that you eat of it, you will die: your spirit will die.
We will discuss this concept of being “dead” in future posts, and especially the biblical texts which are used to support this idea (which is based not on Scripture, but on Greek philosophy and fatalism). One of the great errors of theologians is to trust their own theories and logical ideas rather than the Word of God and the Spirit of God.
Who can believe in a God such as the Calvinist teach ? It is our free will that makes man unique. Angels although infinitely more powerful, lack this. If God overcomes our will, then our will is meaningless. I am not arguing that God cannot do this, nor that he does not do so on occasion, but to tie salvation directly to this is absurd.
Also, to say an “Unregenerate” spirit is incapable of free volition towards good is equally absurd. We have witnessed acts throughout history of Non-Christians doing incredible acts of self-sacrifice, ie: dying for complete strangers. Is this an example of the total depravity that man is incapable of resisting as a result of a non-regenerative spirit ?
Finally, who can honestly believe that salvation cannot be lost ? If I apostate to Islam is my salvation not forfeit ? Or do you have to argue that I never had salvation to begin with, it was all an Illusion, and I was never among the so called “Elect.” Such Rubbish.
I wish the reformation had stuck to reforming due to Rome’s excesses without the need to introduce these absurd beliefs to set them “apart from Rome.”
Free moral agents. Choices come from their fallen nature however and God being sovereign can come alongside of a free moral agent’s will.
There seems to be some confusion, especially the distinction between free will and free choice, the two are not synonymous. Let’s look at the conceptual level:
Early theologians classified mankind into three distinct groups. In modern vocabulary we might say the materialist, the ethicist and the spiritual.
The material man lives at an aesthetic level, He is governed by desire. God and Ethics are not guiding lights in his interior life. He may not acknowledge it, but he is ethically and spiritually, so to speak, not alive.
The ethicist, in contrast, has a developed moral sense which guides his decisions. The ethicist is a more noble fellow than the materialist, but still lacks a true sense of God. He is satisfied with his moral character. Because of this he doesn’t seek God. he may study the Bible daily, teach from the pulpit, and pay his tithe, but he is barred from Heaven because he feels, in his interior, no need for God.
The spiritual man on the other hand, possesses (be it ever so small) a relationship with the Absolute and Infinite God. It is this relationship that enables him to know himself, to see his limitations, even the limitations of his most elevated idealizations. The spiritual man stands, metaphorically naked, but rather than hide from God he asks Him for salvation.
All three categories of men have free choice within their guiding frame. The material man may choose to live outwardly a moral life, guided by aesthetic choice. The ethicist may live true to his most cherished moral values.
Although all have free choice, none has free will, but only the spiritual man is aware of that fact. He alone knows that he cannot will himself to live spotlessly before his God. The lack of free will does not imply the lack of free choice. He exercises his choice by seeking and accepting God’s saving grace.
None of these categories above are totally depraved. That is a misunderstanding of theological logic. You’re not totally depraved. You have free choice. You don’t have free will. Free will belongs only to God.
That might be a good distinction. I am not fond of the term “free will” because of how poorly it describes the human ability to choose. None of us truly have a will that is completely free from any influence.
In light of your three categories, would you say that the materialist or the ethicist can believe in Jesus for eternal life?
I believe they can say that.
If man does not have free will then how can he be guilty of sin? Calvinism works quite well within its 5 points, but when you take the theology to its end you have a Sovereign God who is unjust or you have a Sovereign God who will save all… eventually. “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” – 2 Peter 3:9 (NASB) Surely if God’s desire is for none to perish then He shall get what He desires.
God’s sovereignty is not dependent on man. He is wise enough and powerful enough to be sovereign despite man’s free will.
Yes, yes, yes! Thanks, Kelley.
We do have free will..free will to rebel and reject God and His laws..It is by our free will we choose to reject Him.
But it takes the work of God for us to turn to him.
Man takes way too much credit for himself. Its all about God, not ability of man.
The difference between will and choice is subtle and insignificant in terms of a discussion of freedom of action, but it is crucial to understanding freedom itself.
Will is a creative act. Choice is reactive. As such, will does indeed belong to God alone. Ultimately, creation can only be ex nihilo. Anything else is innovation or modification. So even when we “will” ourselves to make or do something “new”, we’re just choosing to put it together, or do it, in a different way. We didn’t create the possibility; we just saw it.
“Let there be…”, or in secular terms the Big Bang, is the original and unique act of willful creation.
Even choice is an illusion, until that point at which we awaken to that Holy Spirit within us by which we are “made in God’s image.” Before that awakening, all we can do is react according to habit, instinct, emotion and human nature. After that personal epiphany, however obscure and clouded the revelation may be, each of us may be said to have eaten of the metaphorical fruit of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Another name for that “fruit” is personal responsibility. We have the choice between self-control and careless abandon. Yet we still do not create anything new and never-before seen. Even the Internet, for example, is a new twist on something that predates humanity itself: communication. Planes, trains and automobiles are “improvements” on transportation, a function originally performed in mankind by legs.
It may be argued that man’s only unique creation is Hell. It is certainly our greatest accomplishment, as is documented in the daily news. But Hell is not a creation, just a result – not a result of creative will, but of human choices, based on the delusion that we can do better than God.
The hermit Scala Paradisi was a man of true spirituality. He lived in the foothills of Mount Ida on the island of Crete during that satanic reign of the tyrant Videnskabelige.
When nearby villagers and passing pilgrims stopped at the hermitage to pay their respects Paradisi heard grisly stories about depraved atrocities inflicted by Videnskabelige on the defenseless peasants of the beautiful isle.
Filled with dread and love for his kinsmen, noble Paradisi resolved to fast and plead with God to cut down Videnskabelige before more innocents were lost under his sinful rule.
When Paradisi knelt to utter his prayer God gently rebuked him, “Such a plea is unbecoming for a saintly man.”
“Love your enemies,” God whispered, “do good to those that do you harm.”
Paradisi, though he tried with all his heart and mind, was completely unable to release his hate, his fear, his anger, his deadly desire. “How could God not slay this butcher?” echoed bell-like within his mind. Yet Paradisi, godly man, lowered his head and silenced his prayer.
Here ends our tale: Freedom of Will and Freedom of Choice.
Are you Danish? “Videnskabelige” means “scientific” in Danish. And “Scala Paradisi” means something like “ladder of heaven” in Latin. Did I miss a hidden meaning, or am I trying to read too much into your story?
Semantic differences between “will” and “choice” aside, it has been pointed out that problems in trying to reconcile divine will with free choice arise from an inappropriate, anthropomorphic conception of God, who supposedly causes all events and decides all outcomes. Although that is true in one sense (God is all there is), any conception of God, including of the “will” or other attributes of God, is limited and thus inaccurate.
LOL. You outsmarted me — next time I’ll use Swahili for my character’s names. But Swahili’s not yet available on Bablefish! Yes, there is a hidden meaning in the names, Videnskabelige represents our search for objective knowledge and understanding, Scala Paradisi that we reach up to God in incomprehension.
In my tale Scala Paradis knows that God is peaceful, but cannot fathom God’s peacefulness, it surpasses his understanding. Nor can he will himself to will like God, but rather discovers himself, where his will for peace ends and for violence begins.
This is the heart of spiritual experience. The path is this creative tension. God exceeds our idealization. Yet, while we do not understanding and often times are not willing to understand, yet we can still choose to walk in faith.
You write correctly, “any conception of God, including of the “will” or other attributes of God, is limited and thus inaccurate.” True, but that is falsely understood to mean we are completely blind about God. Not so. We know for example that God is peaceful, what surpasses our comprehension is the extent. This is not something to set aside. This is the heart of spirituality.
Yes, the false understanding that we are completely blind about God is spiritually just as pernicious as the false understanding that we can know all about God, or that the whole idea of God is ridiculous. Maybe those three should be called the “unholy trinity.” We approach closer to the peacefulness of God when we shed those three misconceptions.
A further explanation of my stance on anthropomorphism: The idea of a human-like God is obviously extremely limiting and inappropriate. But that is not to say that God does not have qualities commonly associated with human personality, such as awareness, intellect and most importantly in my opinion, love, which is connected to peace, and which I see as the heart of my own spirituality. Perhaps “Videnskabelige” can’t conceive of a God with personality, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. I can’t see where else those qualities could come from – since there IS nowhere else but God. Of course, the same must then be said about negative qualities, such as anger, violence, jealousy, etc. – which the O.T. writers were well aware of. That can lead to endless theological discussion, but bearing in mind that all comes from and is in God, I think that ultimately, the most appropriate response to those negative qualities is forgiveness and compassion.
i agree to some extent that anthropomorphism is inappropriate, but yet it can serve some value too, for if we seek to be guided by God, anthropomorphism helps us understand God in human terms. I think there is little harm as long as we remain aware that our concepts are a limited and poor translation.
I take it from your comments, which I always enjoy reading, that you believe everything is God. After some confusion on this matter I settled on a different view. What makes you confident in your belief?
Perhaps I should amend my thought, given the terrible results of the anthropomorphism of God on religious traditions, there is obviously a grave danger. But still, I have not been able to totally rid myself of the crutch. Perhaps this is due to the low level of my spiritual development. Errrm!
What makes me confident in my belief is that everything in my experience fits into it. But forming a belief is one thing; verbalizing it is something else, and far more difficult. My worldview, probably like yours and everyone else’s, is primarily conceptual rather than verbal. It seems to me that a lot of theological and philosophical arguments come from people trying to say the same thing in different words.
I think you and I share a lot of beliefs, opinions and attitudes, so rather than trying to explain my self in further detail, why don’t you start by explaining what you see differently, and we can take it from there?
I replied before seeing your last comment. If you were referring to anthropomorphism, then we have not much difference of opinion there. It is a primary approach we have in trying to understand the mystery we call God. I don’t see it as a crutch unless it’s overdone and becomes blinding.
Equal in confusion to saying the same thing in different words, is saying different things in the same words. Man’s inability to understand even the simplest phrase is most impressive. Every time I visit this website, it is like reliving the Tower of Bable.
One reason why I think that we are not God is that we lack at least some of the qualities that distinguish God. To name one—we are not self-sufficient.
Another reason why I think that we are not God is the we possess qualities that distinguish us from God. To name one—we are formed.
How funny, my understand should have read misunderstand. Typos obviously make the challenge harder!
Even funnier, I was right the first time. You see the lengths I go to prove a point.
Yeah, I noticed that. But I chose to ignore it. Or maybe I was preordained to!
I’ve said in previous posts that we are God and that everything is God, but I could have worded it better. We are not fully God, that is obvious. But we are fully of God. We are not separated from God, though we are separate in our individuality. The physical world is not separate from God. The two classical explanations for the existence of matter are either that it was created by God (ex nihilo, so by God out of God, Who is No Thing), or it emanated from God. I’m discounting the ludicrous proposition that non-existent matter somehow created itself into existence, though if that non-existent matter turns out to be consciousness itself, then that explanation begins to look a lot like the other two, which seem fundamentally the same to me.
God is immanent in the physical world, being the source and substance of all of it, including our own consciousness; but transcends it, being pre-existent. Our physical selves, of course, are formed. We are not pre-existent, but contingent upon what we call God. (However, I believe that our spiritual nature, unsullied, is substantially the same as the spiritual nature of God, which we refer to in terms such as the Logos, the Christ, the Word, or the Glory of God.) The physical world, or universe, was also formed (in the beginning, by the Word). It is not God, but can be seen as the physical body of God
So yes, as I see it, we are both God and not-God \t the same time. But then, I’ve always been partial to paradoxes.
That’s interesting. So, how do you relate to God—as God or as not God?
For me, the spiritual experience is the experience of the hermit Scala Paradisi.
That sounds like a trick question. Everything I do is in relation to God, whether or not I’m
conscious of that fact at any given time.
I don’t like the imagery of “relating to God as God”. It comes across as delusional. It’s trying to use the word God in two different contexts at once. I probably shouldn’t say that you, I and everyone else are God, because it’s too easy to misunderstand. But it’s my reaction to what I see as people distancing themselves from the divinity that is within them.
I see the relational options more as being of-God (child of God, perhaps?) or not-God (illusion of separation). I hadn’t really thought about it much, but I’d have to say that mostly, it’s as not-God, because daily life is so distracting; though the awareness of being immersed in God is not usually far from my consciousness. When the going gets rough, I’ve developed the habit of bringing that awareness to the forefront, which helps to put things into proper perspective.
It’s not just an awareness of being immersed in God, though. The awareness of God at the core of my being is the other part of that.
Does that make any kind of sense?
Like your hermit, though, I’m still walking the path to a nearness and better understanding of God, by confronting my own hate, fear, anger, desire, etc. After all these years, there’s still plenty left.
You underestimate my deviousness — my trick questions are much trickier. All I’ve asked is a logical progression. First, what you believe, then what are the consequences of that belief.
I think it’s interesting that you reject relating to God as God and prefer child of God or not-God. And I’m glad to hear that you have the experience of relating to God in the first person, as an individual I, and not through a group persona. And I’m glad that you are led to knowing yourself through God, which I think is really a sign that you’re walking a true path.
I think “of God” is such a vague phrase.
Well, it’s all very interesting.
One cannot realistically read that the human was commanded to subdue the earth and not understand the presence of a free will to make decisions in the process. There are only two ways to get out of this corner. One is to philosophize yourself out of it and read into the Scriptures what it does not say. The other is to follow that easy route of religious tradition, declaring that it is not for us to understand; we simply need to accept that it is so.
Humankind became so evil in His eyes that God was grieved in His heart and regretted that He made the human on the earth (Gen 6:6). Surely, this indicates the human’s free will, for why would God regret something He predestined?
Moses also repeatedly provided clear descriptions of the fact of the free will of man, for example, “I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live (…)” (Deut 30:19). Is it not interesting that here one sees an outright declaration of the human’s free will, a definite option of choice between life and death? And similarly, is that not also the essence in the human’s New Covenant choice in which Christ is the way, the truth, and the life?
In studying the various biblical concepts of ‘knowledge’ today, I could not help but notice the words of Paul in his letter to the Ephesians (e.g. 4:22-5:15): You took off; you put on; you put away; don’t let; don’t grieve God’s Holy Spirit; be kind and compassionate; be imitators; walk in love; let no one deceive you; pay careful attention. I do not see a free will versus free choice, but indeed a free will to make my choices. You cannot have the ability of free choice without free will.
One of the constant accusations brought against the Christian faith by atheists, is that the presence of so much evil is allowed in the world by this “Almighty God” of the Christians. For me, the denial of the human’s free will despite what life manifests feeds their atheism and vulgar viciousness.
The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination cannot survive without the denial of free will – I guess that is a topic to come in this series.
What do you make of Romans 7:9 “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.”
Chapter 7 of Romans deals specifically with the relationship between law and sin. Here Paul is using himself as an example to describe an inner struggle in which his mind wars against his flesh, which is manipulated by sin. Although he wants to do good, an evil inclination within him sometimes causes him to do things he hates (and so do you and I, I’m sure). He ends in verse 25 with the declaration that he does not have in himself the ability to escape this sinful nature, but that deliverance is in Christ Jesus only.
I have never understood free will to mean you will not have trouble under foot (heh-heh)! But it does afford me the ability to choose or lose. My own character and emotional strength to name but two factors, will certainly play a role.
Bear in mind the series focuses on Calvinism. We cannot divorce the Calvinistic sense (i.e. denial) of free will from their predestination doctrine. This doctrine simply implies: And God said, let Us make humans in our own image and as we start let us “for our good pleasure” (words used by some theologians in their description of the doctrine) determine who among them throughout the ages will have eternal life and who will have eternal condemnation. And just for starters, let Us kick off by condemning Adam’s eldest son.
Well, it won’t be the first time that I’ve been perplexed, but how do you reconcile:
“Although he wants to do good, an evil inclination within him sometimes causes him to do things he hates.” with “I do not see a free will versus free choice, but indeed a free will to make my choices.”
What is this conflict between wanting to do good and evil inclination, if not a conflict between choice and will. Are we take that “his mind wars against his flesh” to imply will is in battle with meat and bone? Is the body addicted to sin autonomous of the mind? Is sin not a moral failure but the victory of a physical addiction?
Don’t misunderstand my intent, I’m not interested in disagreeing, I’m merely trying to understand your thought. It confuses me: I promise, I’ll congratulate you the moment I find it makes sense, whether I agree or not.
I am not even going to go to a spiritual level on this: One can note many practical examples – temper is but a simple one. I cannot deny that temper has caused decisions by myself that I later dearly regretted. It is also something against which Paul expressed clear warning, e.g. Col 3:8. In the same verse he mentions filthy communication. Do the people who so generously apply the f-word in their communication have no free will to do otherwise?
And so we can go on.
I have just finished a blog post on the topic of walking in the light and could not help noticing that Eph 5 is a very explicit illustration of the question of free will.
That’s an interesting answer. I view anger as a defensive-aggressive (mis)application of will. We can tame ourselves and not to act on it, which suggests we have a choice, although I certainly admit it’s not a choice that’s always easy to access.
Cultural conditioning. Yes, it can be so ingrained that we’re not even aware we’re making a choice.
What were we discussing? I argued there’s a distinction between will and choice, in that one might not want to do something that one knows is right, but yet still choose to do. I thinks that’s true.
Cultural conditioning. Are you arguing that one can’t choose to do something if they are unaware of the choice? Yes, I agree, that’s right too
I don’t think these are contradictory positions. Still, you raise a very interesting point. I’ll have to think more deeply about this topic. Thank you.
Thanks. I think our discussion has shown that the distinction between the two concepts can be a bit foggy sometimes and perhaps depends a lot on one’s own definition/understanding of each. And I agree with you that the topic needs some deep thought.
The body is “addicted to sin” not autonomous of the mind, but because of the mind, which arises from the flesh and reacts to its natural needs and desires. It is addicted autonomous of the spirit, which does not arise from flesh. Indeed, the flesh arises by the action of the spirit. Good old-fashioned dualism, which our finest minds (not spirits) have been unable to escape.
This is the primary spiritual battle. Not a conflict between choice and will but a decision between two possible choices – between mind and spirit, between the desires of the flesh and the “will of God”.
To make things more interesting, there is often no conflict between the two.
Thank you Lutek, you ought to be a Star Wars character.
So, can we abandon all the confusing jargon: body, flesh, mind, spirit, soul, will, choice and tooth fairy, It boils down to there’s a choice to be made between possibilities although sometimes there isn’ a conflict?
Well isn’t that what I’ve been saying? If you’ve all been saying the same thing, then slap me twice with a mudminnow.
Seems we can’t abandon the jargon. As for all of us saying the same thing, I can only speak for myself, so if I had a mudminnow I could only fairly slap you once with it.
Star Wars, eh? I don’t get it. Are you talking about when G-d said to me, “Lutek, I am your Father?”
That’s it. You should start your own mini-series, something between Star Wars and Star Trek. You’re Lutek: Skywalker meets Captain Kirk.
As for mudminnows, slap me once and faith commands I have to offer another cheek. Rather happy though if you decline. I’m not one for the scriptures, maybe you can help, does the other cheek have to be mine?
I hope you’re not offended, but I decline your offer of another cheek. I think it has to be yours, but by some counts you have four “cheeks” in total. Odds are that the next one would be one of the two I’d rather not see.
Truth be told I’m rather grotesque, face like a gargoyle. If you’re squeamish you might want to reconsider mudminnowing the first cheek? I won’t be offended at a total decline.
That works for me.
Mudminnows rejoice. You’ve no idea how much anxiety our negotiation caused among the mudminnow clan. The last time a mudminnow was used for a slap, the crash helmet came off and the poor minnow was left in a daze. Rest easy mudminnows, our dear fishy friends.
Fish Slapping, you know that its the 423rd fastest growing participation sport in the world, with slappers in 300 countries, which is an extraordinary figure when you consider there are only 196 countries in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLdK9zaLaG8
I bow to your mastery of the subject. I can only listen and learn.
Free will is the invention of man, instigated by the devil (David Wilmoth, The Baptist Examiner, September 16, 1989, 5).
HAHAHA. Let’s just take a second to laugh at that….
Now, my scholarly, super-intelligent answer to all Calvinists…..ready for it……Prevenient Grace = Freed Will. Pow! Bazaam! Booyah! God is good.
My reasoning ability may seem rather simple compared to the no-inherent-free-willers (those Christians that believe fallen man does not have a free will capacity to believe/accept or reject God’s call/drawing, commands, instructions, promises and gifts); but, to me, their interpreting/reasoning process seems somewhat like that of a person that walks into a 10,000,000 acre forest of mostly pine trees and a few Aspen trees and comes into the middle of the forest and finds the only plot of Aspen trees, about 100 acres, and becomes so infatuated with the fall beauty of the Aspen trees that he concludes that the 10,000,000 acre forest must be made up of all Aspen trees.
Concerning the theological topic of the free will of fallen man, I refer to myself as an inherent-free-willer.
Because God is communicating to mankind through the Scriptures in the Bible in a style that reeks with an obvious understood implication that the hearer/reader, mankind, has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject His call/drawing, commands, instructions, promises and gifts (some folk briefly refer to it as man’s free will), I let the concept of mankind having this inherent ability be the precedence.
Therefore when I encounter the very few verses of Scripture text (approximately less than 0.5% of the Scriptures) that on the surface possibly could be interpreted to contradict that majority precedence (man’s inherent ability to accept/believe or reject God’s call/drawing, commands, instructions, promises and gifts), I interpret them in light of this majority precedence (which can be easily done). By the way, to my simple mind, since all communications has an ultimate purpose (or desired outcome) and since the whole of God’s communication in the Bible reeks with an implication that fallen mankind has an inherent-free-will ability to believe/accept or reject God’s call/drawing, commands, instructions, promises and gifts, His purpose in communicating with fallen mankind in the Bible is to convince/persuade fallen mankind that we need to decide to repent of our sin and believe/accept (not reject) His call/drawing, commands, instructions, promises and gifts.
The Scripture also reveals more detail on God’s calling/drawing; that is, God’s calling/drawing is by the convicting/convincing/persuading work of the Holy Spirit using creation, our consciences and the word of God (Rom. 1:18-20; Rom. 10:8-17; 1Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12; Luke 8:21; Jn. 15:26, 16:13; 2 Thess. 2:13).
If one lets the no-inherent-free-will interpretation of the less than 0.5% of the Scriptures set the precedence on what the word of God says about man’s free will, then a person is forced to do some absurd reasoning/interpretation of the majority of scriptures that imply that man has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject God’s call/drawing, commands, instructions, promises and gifts. For example —- when I have asked Calvinists to interpret the majority of the Scripture, that reeks with the implication “that man has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject what is being communicated to them from God” from their “no inherent ability of man to accept/believe or reject” perspective, the usual answer I get is along this line is: “Yes, God communicates with man in a style that implies that man has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject what is being communicated to them from Him, but God knows that man does not have that inherent ability.” To me, that response seems to imply that God has been deceiving mankind on this theological issue for millennia, implying that God is a deceiver. When I tell them that implies that God is a deceiver, they usually respond by saying that “— My (God’s) ways (are) higher than your ways — from Isa. 55:9”.
Well put, David. And a vivid illustration as well.
You are right that the vast majority of Scripture either explicitly or implicitly teaches the reality of free will. Those who deny it are required to cherry-pick a few texts and quote them out context in order to get Scripture to support their ideas.
I wouldnt say Hes a puppet master, but a perfecter of my will. He changed my will, and I am forever thankful. Born again is just that, a change of our will. Its done by God. He doesnt drag anyone against their will, he changes their will so they agree. Its a process. and a graceful one. I cannot believe God wouldnt violate free will, he didnt get lucky writing the bible through men. There was certainly “God over will” going on there! Amen!~ If this were the story “Lord of the Rings”, we are the Orcs. I think thats what people fail to see when they fight for their free will. And on predestination..what would you have me believe? He chose me because of something good in and of myself? Not a chance. Bible says none are good, no not one. It also says no one does any good. I ask, would it not be a good thing to chose God? How is that possible? I found 23 verses saying man can not choose. I found 0 verses saying man can choose. I found 9 verses saying man must choose. In conclusion, if you examine this honestly, and do not line up with Spurgeon or Calvin…I dont know what to say to you other than, Best wishes. Calvinists seem to live like Arminians, while Arminians seem to pray like Calvinists! I see this as hopeful! 🙂
Free will is a bit of a misnomer. One must first ask “free from what?” And what do we mean by “will”? Is it what I want to do? Is it what I actually do? When we combine the words, does “free will” mean I am free to do whatever I want to do? And if so, is my “free will” driven by my desires? And if so, do my desires exist in a vacuum, or are they influenced by outside stimuli? And if the stimuli are strong enough, is there a point at which my “free will” is sufficiently influenced to act in a certain way? And if so, is my will really free? That is, is my will solely my own, or is it the sum total of the stimuli that have shaped my desires?
Calvinists! “Robots For Christ”
Does Forced Grace, aka , Irresistible Grace, cancel out the dominion of Total Depravity?
Without freewill you don’t have love.