What about Free Will?...Grace?

[Oscar]

Imagine playing chess with Garry Kasparov.  You have complete freedom to choose whatever moves you want to make, but you know for sure that you will lose.

Stephen,

My husband and son had a great time explaining this to me.  I think I get it now.  Very insightful.

M

M,
Don't feel bad, it seems that Tom Maddux is missing the point as well.  It seems like such an obvious illustration of God's sovereignty that I'm mystified as to why someone wouldn't understand.  In terms of Calvinism, it illustrates irresistible grace.  In chess, the objective is to checkmate the opponent's king.  God's objective is to win our hearts.  He won't fail to attain his objective.

Tom,
I searched the internet and found a review of Norman Geisler's "Chosen but Free."  Based on what the review says, I don't agree with Geisler.  The teachings of R. C. Sproul seem a whole lot closer to being right.  The following is a link to the review:

http://www.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/geisler.htm

Steve,

Here are the first two paragraphs of the article you referenced:

"Norman Geisler is presently the President of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. He has previously taught at Dallas Theological Seminary among other evangelical institutions. He is the author of hundreds of articles and dozens of books. Many have found great help in his writings, this author included. Alas, even exceptional intellects are subject to the limitations of humanity. With one Prominent Exception, our race is an unbroken line of fallible beings whose thinking processes are marred by personal and ancestral histories, undetected prejudices, and undiscovered blind spots which prevent us from the objectivity that we desire in regard to our intellectual pursuits. This human frailty is more or less obvious according to the individual and the subject matter with which he is dealing. In Dr. Geisler's case, it is readily apparent that, for him, the doctrine of election in particular, and Calvinism in general, is subject to this frailty.

Dr. Geisler's latest production is entitled, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election (CBF). It does not take long, however, for the theologically literate reader,(NB I guess this doesn't include Geisler), to understand that this particular work is anything but a "balanced" view of election. Beginning with the self-evident contradiction in the title itself, it should be evident to any objective reader that balance was not the aim in its production. Rather, CBF sets out to present its viewpoint, which is simply a form of Arminianism cloaked under another name, as being so obviously correct that the reader must wonder how exegetes and theologians of the stature of John Calvin, John Owen, B.B. Warfield, John Murray, etc., did not see it. "


This is pretty stock material coming out of the extreme Calvinist camp. In reality, these paragraphs only say two things: First, they are little more than an ad hominem attack on Geisler's intellect and scholarship.  This is a common ploy of extreme Calvinists...simply attack THE MAN in an arrogant, superior and dismissive tone.

They have a long history of this...in his "Institutes" Calvin called those who disagree with him, "ignorant swine" and "virulant dogs".
Oink Oink, Bow Wow.

Second, they use straw man arguments, misrepresenting the man's position, and proceed to refute THEIR version of his argument.  Geisler's book was a reply to another book called, "The Potter's Freedom" which espouses an extreme Calvinist view.  He devoted AN ENTIRE CHAPTER to misrepresentations of his own, (Geisler's) views.

Calling Giesler's views "simply another form of Arminianism" grossly misrepresents what Geisler teaches.  Geisler is BOTH a theologian and an philosopher.  He points out  fundamental theological and logical flaws at the very root of extreme Calvinist thought.

If you don't think men like Sproul are extreme, listen to this.  I have a cassette tape, given to me by Dave Sable, that comes from Sproul's Ligonier Ministries.  On it, Sproul clearly and openly claims that Charles Ryrie is an apostate and is "under the curse of God".

This is because of his preaching, "another Gospel", that is, that a man can accept or reject Christ.   If he's right, that means men like J. Vernon McGee, Billy Graham, Dwight L. Moody AREN'T EVEN CHRISTIANS!!  And, of course, neither am I.  I once played this for an adult Sunday School class.  They were shocked!  Many of them were reading from Ryrie Study Bibles.

So, I would suggest that one do some careful study before following the logic of a position to any such extreme, no matter who is teaching it.

Sorry for the long post.

Thomas Maddux

[sfortescue]

The idea is that God, knowing all possible futures, has chosen the one that best fits his purpose and glory.

In knowing all possible futures He foreknew the free, uncoerced choices to believe or to reject God that all individuals in that future would make.  He then chose that future to be actualized in time.

So, all events are predestined but the individuals are making uncoerced choices.

Tom,

I'm beginning think that I misread your description of the "Middle Knowledge" position.  It seems to be poorly phrased.  If I have misread this, I wonder whether others, such as the reviewer, in an analogous manner failed to understand the book.  The thing that is confusing is that the second paragraph talks about knowing what people would choose, and then immediately seems to say that God chose that, thereby seeming to be merely God's endorsement of people's free will choices.  This is only a cosmetic change of the Arminian position.  So at first glance, it seems to say exactly what the reviewer said that the book said.

But, on closer examination, it looks like you might have intended to say something which would be better stated with your above phrases in a different order.  To make it clearer, I will try to rephrase it in differnt words.

People's choices naturally tend to be affected by circumstances, so that among all possible futures, in some a person will choose one way and in others the person will choose differently.  So if God chooses a subset, out of all possible futures, which consists of those futures in which the people he has chosen are the ones who choose him, then his sovereign will is accomplished.

This description better fits the analogy of the chess game than what your description seemed to me to be describing.

Some time, I will have to find and read the book to see what it actually says.

[Oscar]

Steve,

BINGO!  That is exactly it.

The key understanding is that BOTH election and freedom are REAL.  Our decisions are uncoerced, as they seem to us to be.  

The extreme Calvinist position boils down to a view very close to complete determinism of all human choices.  In other words, no one makes choices.  God either makes the choices for you or sets up conditions in you that preclude any real freedom.

This has real problems.  One is that God, ultimately, is the source of all evil.  If you ask a question like, "Why would God hold people guilty for committing acts that HE compelled them to commit?", their answers aren't very good.  

They either tell you that you are not allowed to ask questions like that, or they attempt to intimidate the questioner by calling you names.   My aforementioned "filthy swine" and "virulent dogs" are direct quotes from Calvin.  There is much more of this in his writings.

I don't find myself intimidated or impressed.

God bless,

Tom M.
Oink Oink, Bow Wow

[editor]

I have been looking into this issue for a few weeks now, and was awarded the rather daunting task of teaching on Roman's 9 last Wednesday.

I read two commentaries, one that said basically, "Man was created in God's image, and part of that was free will."  The way this author framed the argument was like this:

"Either we have free will, or God made us all robots."

The other said that God chose everyone before the foundation of the world, and that there are elect, on the face of the earth today, that aren't saved yet, but they will be, because God chose them.  The author of this version explained it like this:

Free will and volition are different.  All humans have volition.  They can choose to stand or sit, blink their eyes or shut them, and prefer chocolate or vanilla, etc.   However, in spite of the fact that we have volition, we don't have free will, in that without God's intervention, we can never choose righteousness, or life, or salvation.  In our unregenerate state we are God's enemies, no matter what our volition.

The example used to explain this was that of a man locked in a 10x10 cell, without food or water.  He is free to stand or sit, scream out or sing, but he is not free to leave, let alone obtain that which will allow him to live.  He is at the mercy of another, for his sustenance.

In a similar manner, although we are free to see a movie, or dig a hole in the backyard, we are not free to escape our sinful condition, without God's unmerited Grace.

I know this is not the most cogent argument on the topic, and that there is much more to say, and way more variables to consider, but it did help me get my feet wet.  I was always under the impression that "no-free-willer's"  were trying to tell me that we are all puppets and robots.  Even though they might plead with me that they were NOT saying that, and that they didn't believe that, I just couldn't hear them, or understand them.  

Also, Romans 9 must be read in context with the rest of the book, Romans 8 and Romans 10, which most people really like.

Brent

[sfortescue]

People's choices naturally tend to be affected by circumstances, so that among all possible futures, in some a person will choose one way and in others the person will choose differently.  So if God chooses a subset, out of all possible futures, which consists of those futures in which the people he has chosen are the ones who choose him, then his sovereign will is accomplished.

A critique of my rephrasing of Tom's description of the "Middle Knowledge" position:

If a person's choices can be affected by circumstances in such a way as to choose the Lord, then it would seem that the person is not quite totally depraved.  This would contradict the first point of Calvinism.  This fault could perhaps be repaired by expanding the set of possible futures to include the possibility of the Lord changing the person.  Of course, that brings back the criticism of a lack of free will.  Another defect of this model is that it portrays us as being an intrinsic part of the universe, effectively denying the existence of our spirit.

Imagine playing chess with Garry Kasparov.  You have complete freedom to choose whatever moves you want to make, but you know for sure that you will lose.

A critique of the chess game analogy:

Total depravity is portrayed, since the player is trying to hinder God's purpose.  The last move presents a problem since at that point, the player has no move: there is no more free will.  This analogy is not all that different from the traditional Calvinist position.  There is the very tiny probability that someone might make all the right moves and avoid losing, meaning that grace is not quite fully irresistable, but of course a different game could be chosen that doesn't have that problem.  So while there is no free will about the outcome of the game, there is free will about the line of play that leads to the inevitable outcome, thus Brent likened it to the choice between chocolate and vanilla.  This model is better than the previous because our spirit is seen as playing the game, but it is still defective because even after losing the game, we are still the same.  After all, it's only a game.

The problem I with reformed theology, is that it is so logical it makes me nervous.  I like logical things, but on the other hand, I am uncomfortable with it in a spiritual sense, sometimes.

Since the physical aspect of our being in this universe is finite and Eccl. 3:11 says "... he hath set eternity in their heart, ..." our spirit must not be a part of this universe, and therefore not subject to its laws including time, since time is a part of this universe.  This confounds attempts to identify how cause and effect work in the spiritual realm.

I wonder if both sides of this debate ever consider that there may be some truths that transcend the ken of human intellect. The doctrine of election is in my view, a wonderful mystery to be enjoyed, rather than to be a bone of contention.

...

Written outside Heaven Gates: Whosoever will may come!
Written inside Heaven's Gates: Chosen in Him from the foundation of the World!
I believe the key to this mystery is perspective...!
Verne

A few links that I found:

http://members.truepath.com/lenzi/intro.html                 about Arminianism
http://andstuff.org/OmniscienceVsFreeWill                     a rather peculiar sort of message board
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/molinism.htm         about middle knowledge

Some links about about Calvinism:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/calvinism.html

"The Bondage of the Will" by Luther
"The Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards can be found here, here or here.

[Arthur]

Imagine playing chess with Garry Kasparov.  You have complete freedom to choose whatever moves you want to make, but you know for sure that you will lose.

Could I bring along a computer?

 

[al Hartman]

Quote from: Stephen Fortescue on June 02, 2003Since the physical aspect of our being in this universe is finite and Eccl. 3:11 says "... he hath set eternity in their heart, ..." our spirit must not be a part of this universe, and therefore not subject to its laws including time, since time is a part of this universe.  This confounds attempts to identify how cause and effect work in the spiritual realm.

Quote from: vernecarty on May 24, 2003
I wonder if both sides of this debate ever consider that there may be some truths that transcend the ken of human intellect. The doctrine of election is in my view, a wonderful mystery to be enjoyed, rather than to be a bone of contention.

     The bottom line is:  We will believe what we want to believe.  If we are willing to set self-preference aside and accept God's point of view, we will not be disappointed.  If we insist on knowing all about something (anything) regarding the Lord, that very pursuit may come between us and knowing him! "But ye have not so learned Christ..." (Eph.4:20).

al Hartman

[Joe Sperling]

The hardest part for me to accept about Calvinism (though
I believe most of it whole-heartedly) is reprobation. As Arthur had pointed out on another thread I believe it says
that God has "appointed" some vessels to honour and
some to dishonour, becoming "vessels of wrath".

When I've read the explanations, such as "Reprobation Asserted" by John Bunyan I've tried to accept it. The main argument is that God is Sovereign, and what he chooses to do he can do because he is God.

They teach that God has not created anyone for damnation, but he has the right to create these people but "pass them up" and let them choose their own way. This is where I have the problem. Isn't "passing up" on these people by not giving them Grace to draw them to himself as good as having created them to damn them? True---we are all sinners, and should ALL go to hell because of our sins. If not for the work of Jesus Christ on the cross we would all
definitely go to hell. When I say I have a "problem"--I mean in understanding it.

The argument is that we ALL were going to hell so if God "passes up" on the vessels meant for wrath he has not created them for wrath, they have chosen wrath themselves. But--if God calls to all to repent, but doesn't give some the Grace to do that very thing, aren't they in a sense created to be damned?

Like I say---maybe I just don't understand the teaching at all and am just confused. But since you are on the subject of Calvinism and Free Will etc. I thought I'd ask if there is someone who DOES understand it.

Thanks, Joe

[al Hartman]

     2Peter3:9 says that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
     When i flick the wall switch, i am ever so grateful that i don't have to understand everything that the volts and amperes and ohms are doing between the dam and my house before the lights will come on.  "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise..." 1Cor.1:27.
     These remarks in no way demean sound bible teaching.  But sometimes, when i wonder how such a simpleton as i can ever comprehend the deep things of God, such thoughts comfort me...

al Hartman

[Oscar]

Steve,

You wrote,

"
If a person's choices can be affected by circumstances in such a way as to choose the Lord, then it would seem that the person is not quite totally depraved.  This would contradict the first point of Calvinism.  This fault could perhaps be repaired by expanding the set of possible futures to include the possibility of the Lord changing the person.  Of course, that brings back the criticism of a lack of free will.  Another defect of this model is that it portrays us as being an intrinsic part of the universe, effectively denying the existence of our spirit."

Two comments:

1.  Regarding your understanding that a person "is not quite totally depraved".  The doctrine of total depravity does not mean that all men are as bad as they can possibly be.  It means that the fall has affected every aspect of a man body, soul, and spirit.  Some Calvinists take this to mean that man is completely paralyzed...can't do ANYTHING of spiritual profit.  This bunch denies the usefullness of apologetics, since they don't think that any information can be usefull in changing a depraved mind.

Most Calvinists, however, are more moderate in their views on the extent of depravity.  Remember Steve, even Wesleyan Arminians believe in total depravity.  They, as well as Calvinists believe that it is only through grace that a man can respond to God.  The difference is that the Wesleyans believe that God gives grace sufficient to respond to all men.

2. On your idea that if we are "an intrinsic part of the universe" we cannot have a spiritual nature.  I don't see how Molinism, which is a theory about how God "thinks", implies this.  The last time I looked out the window I was living in the universe and was made out of the same stuff, as to my physical nature.  How would that mean that I have no spirit???  

Thomas

[Oscar]

Here is a little John Calvin for his fans.

"But because many are the species of blasphemy which these virulent dogs utter against God, we, as far as the case admits, give an answer to each.  Foolish men raise many grounds of quarrel with God, as if they held him subject to their accusations.  First, they ask why God is offended with his creatures who have not provoked him by any previous offense; for to devote to destruction whomsoever he pleases, more resembles the caprice of a tyrant than the legal sentence of a judge; and, therefore, there is reason to expostulate with God, if at his mere pleasure men are, without any desert of their own, predestinated to eternal death.  If at any time thoughts of this kind come into the minds of the pious, they will be sufficiently armed to repress them, by considering how sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists.  For if his will has any cause, there must be something antecedent to it, and to which it is annexed; this it were impious to imagine.  

The will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness,  so that everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it.  Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased.  But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God., and nothing such can be found.  Let humam temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not..."

A few observations on this passage;
1. God, according to John C, chooses to cast men into hell and torment them eternally simply because he is "pleased" to do so.  That apparently means that he likes or enjoys it!

2. If this doesn't seem quite right to you it is, according to John C, because you are a "virulant dog".  If you were "pious", you would suppress such questions.  IN OTHER WORDS if you disagree with Johnny C it is because there is something wrong with YOU!  Somehow, that sounds familiar....where have I heard that before?

3. The answer, says Johnny C, is that damning these people is quite allright because if God does it it is ok.  If it seems a little harsh to you it is because you are audaciously wicked.  God, it seems, is sort of a 900 pound gorilla who, as we know, can sit wherever he wants to.

4. Johnny's position is called Volunteerism, and he has expressed it well.  However, there is another opinion on this.  It is called Essentialism.  God's essential nature is such that he is loving and just AS WELL AS  all powerful and sovereign.  He is not limited by a law above himself...but he only acts according to his own nature and he is by nature just.

5. It seems a little peculiar to me that a being who would torment men in hell for eternity because he just wants to would then turn around and lecture the rest of the folks on being loving, merciful, and just.  

I guess that makes me a virulent dog.

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

It seems a little peculiar to me that a being who would torment men in hell for eternity because he just wants to would then turn around and lecture the rest of the folks on being loving, merciful, and just.  

I guess that makes me a virulent dog.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,
     GRrrr...  WOOF WOOF!!!       er,    Amen!!!

al

[Oscar]

1. God, according to John C, chooses to cast men into hell and torment them eternally simply because he is "pleased" to do so.  That apparently means that he likes or enjoys it!

Thomas Maddux

In defense of Jhonny C (has a nice ring doesn't it?), his point is not so much that God cast sinful men into hell because he takes particular pleasure in their torment, rather such an action is entirely consistent with a Holy God who cannot countenance sin-all men are guilty!

Verne,

Yes, it is true that all men are sinners and are guilty.  But Calvin's teaching goes far beyond this.  For example:

"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever HE WISHED to happen with regard to EVERY man.  All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each HAS BEEN CREATED for one or the other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death."

Or;

"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was HIS PLEASURE one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was HIS PLEASURE to doom to destruction."

Af few observations;
1. Calvin expressly denies that election has anything to do with good or evil works by the subjects of his decree.  It is not that men are condemned FOR sin.  Men are condemned TO sin, judgement, and condemnation on the basis of God's "pleasure".  

2. Men are created for the purpose of being condemned and lost. It is not that God creates men and then judges them if they reject Him and choose evil.  They are created FOR THE PURPOSE of sinning and suffering the wrath of God.  Calvin believed that this somehow "glorifies" God.  

3. Note in the second quote that Calvin believed that God took just as much pleasure in condemning as in saving!!!!

It seems to me that a good cure for Calvinism is a little Calvin.

Thomas Maddux

[/quote]

[Arlene]

Our church is having a Bible Conference this weekend, the guest speaker is Dr. James White.
Has anyone heard of, or read any of his books?
He's the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, based in Phoenix, Arizona.
Some of his books are:  
The King James Only Controversy
The Forgotten Trinity
The Potter's Freedom
The God Who Justifies

[Oscar]

James White is a very strong TULIP Calvinist.  The Potter's Freedom is a book he wrote in an attempt to refute Norman Geisler's book, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election.

Geisler put out a second edition with a reply to White.  After several pages in which he replies to specific points in White's book, Giesler says:

"All in all, The Potter's Freedom is a good critique, but unfortunately it is not a critique of my view.  It often misunderstands, misrepresents, and mischaracterizes the moderate Calvinistic presentation of Chosen but Free."

I read the King James Only Controversy several years ago.  It was quite good.

Thomas Maddux