Posted on 10/12/2005 12:25:44 PM PDT by HarleyD
Determinists believe that every event (or every event in a certain category) has a cause that makes it happen exactly as it happens. Among the varieties of determinism are the views of (1) Plato, who held that one’s ethical choices are determined by his view of what is good, (2) B. F. Skinner, who believed that stimuli, dispositions and motives govern all human behavior. (3) Democritus, Hobbes, Spinoza, and many others, who have held that every event in the universe is determined by a physical cause. Of special interest to us are (4) theological determinists, who hold that all events occur exactly as God has foreordained them. These would include Calvin and others in his tradition. The classic exposition of theological determinism is Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will. Note that it is possible to be a determinist in sense (4) without being a determinist in sense (3). That seems to be the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says in 3.1 that “God did… ordain whatsoever comes to pass,” but also says in 9.1 that man’s will “is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil” (compare 5.2).
William James, in his article “The Dilemma of Determinism,” distinguished between “hard” and “soft” determinism. On his view, soft determinists hold that all events, including human decisions, are determined, but that some kind of freedom and moral responsibility also exists. Hard determinists hold (what James thought was the more consistent position) that the determination of human decisions requires us to reject the concept of moral responsibility. Other writers, however, have used the hard/soft distinction differently, defining soft determinism as a view that is largely deterministic but that allows for some uncaused or self-caused human choices
Chance can refer (1) to uncaused events, or (2) to events of which the causes are uncertain and normally uncontrollable. When we throw dice, we often say that the result is “by chance;” but we then don’t usually mean that the result is uncaused, only that the causes are hard to ascertain or control. Laws of probability enable us to predict the results of such chance events over the long term (for example, 50% of coin flips come out tails), but not in individual cases. Chance can also be (3) a synonym of fate, conceived as an impersonal force that makes everything happen as it happens. In the first sense, chance is incompatible with determinism. In the second sense, it is compatible with determinism. In the third sense, it presupposes determinism.
Freedom is a more complicated notion. Generally speaking, a person is free when (1) he has the ability to do something, (2) there is some obstacle or barrier that might have prevented him from exercising that ability but is not now preventing him. Someone is “set free” from prison, for example, when he can go where he likes without the barriers of prison walls, bars, guards, etc. People have political freedom when they are able publish political opinions, organize political parties, etc., without government interference. So freedom is always “freedom to” and “freedom from:” freedom to do something, and freedom from some obstacle.
On this account, there are many different kinds of freedom, since there are many different things we can be free to do, and many obstacles we can be free from. So we speak of economic freedom, political freedom, religious freedom, freedom from illness, and many others.
The following kinds of freedom are of particular interest to theologians and apologists: (1) Moral freedom, or the ability to do good, despite the barrier of our sinful condition. God gives us this freedom by his grace (John 8:32-36, Rom. 6:7, 18-23, 8:2). When Scripture speaks of human freedom, it is almost always in this sense.
(2) The freedom to act according to our own desires. This kind of freedom is sometimes called compatibilism, because it is compatible with determinism. Scripture doesn’t describe this capacity as “freedom,” but it does ascribe this capacity to all human beings. Jesus teaches, for example, that the good person acts out of the desires of his good heart, the wicked person out of his wicked heart (Matt. 12:35). There are times, of course, when we are unable to do what we “want” to do, at some level of wanting (as Rom. 7:15). But in most of the decisions of life, we do what we want, in the face of potential obstacles.
(3) Freedom from natural necessity, the freedom to act without the constraint of natural causes. This is the freedom mentioned in my earlier reference to the Westminster Confession. Its theological importance is its implication that human choice is not necessarily or always the result of natural causes. As image of God, we have dominion over the earth and in some ways transcend the world process. And we may not excuse our sins by saying that they were forced upon us by heredity or environment.
(4) Freedom from all causation, sometimes called libertarianism. I have freedom in the libertarian sense when, no matter what I choose to do, I might equally have chosen the opposite. So my choices are not only free from natural causes (as in (3)) but also from divine causation. Indeed, my libertarian choices are also free from myself in a way, for they are not determined by my character, dispositions, or desires. These inner motives may influence a free decision in this sense, but they never determine it. So a libertarian free decision is entirely indeterminate, uncaused. Thus libertarianism is sometimes called incompatibilism, since it is incompatible with determinism.
Libertarianism has been taught by a number of philosophers from ancient Greece (Epicurus) to the present (Alvin Plantinga). It was the position of some church Fathers including Justin Martyr and Tertullian, Pelagius, the opponent of Augustine, the Jesuit Luis Molina, Fausto and Lelio Socinus, Jacob Arminius, and present-day Arminians, open theists and process theologians.
Libertarians argue that we must have this kind of freedom because (1) our intuition reveals that we have it, and (2) it is necessary for moral responsibility, for we cannot be held responsible for anything we are determined to do.
Opponents of libertarianism, however, reply that (1) Human intuition reveals that we choose among various alternatives, but it never reveals to us that any of our choices are absolutely uncaused. Intuition cannot prove a universal negative. (2) Far from teaching that libertarian freedom is essential to moral responsibility, Scripture never mentions libertarian freedom. (3) This doctrine would make it impossible for us to judge anyone’s guilt in a court of law. For to prove someone responsible for a crime and therefore guilty, the prosecution would have to take on the impossible burden of proof of showing that the decision of the accused had no cause whatsoever. (4) Law courts, indeed, assume the opposite of libertarianism, namely that people are responsible only for actions that they are sufficiently motivated to perform. If it could be shown that an accused person committed a crime without any sufficient cause or motivation at all he would most likely be judged insane rather than guilty. (5) Scripture contradicts libertarianism, by ascribing divine causes to human decisions (Exod. 34:24, Is. 44:28, Dan. 1:9, John 19:24, Acts 13:48, 16:14), even sinful ones (Gen. 45:5-8, Ps. 105:24, Luke 22:22, Acts 2:23-24, 3:18, 4:27-28, Rom. 9:17). In none of these (or many other) cases does divine causation eliminate human responsibility. In fact, these texts often mention human responsibility in the same context. (6) Scripture also contradicts libertarianism by teaching that human decisions are governed by the heart (Luke 6:45), and by teaching that the human heart itself is under God’s control (Ps. 33:15, Prov. 21:1). (7) In Scripture, the basis of human responsibility is not libertarian freedom, but (a) God’s sovereign right to evaluate the conduct of his creatures (Rom. 9:19-21), and (b) the knowledge (Luke 12:47-48, Rom. 1:18-32) and resources (Matt. 25:14-29) God has given to each person. (b) shows that in Scripture there is an important relation between responsibility and ability, but the abilities in view here do not include the absolute ability to choose opposite courses of action.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the Bible teaches theistic determinism, one that is “soft” in James’s sense. Scripture renounces chance in the first and third senses above, but not in the second. And it teaches that human beings sometimes have moral freedom, usually have compatibilist freedom, never have libertarian freedom. Scripture may imply that we have freedom from natural causation as well. Certainly it doesn’t deny that, but I don’t know of any passage that clearly affirms it.
Might I suggest the following article? I would maintain all of our courses are determined by God to some extent.
It's the "...to some extent" that most of us quibble about, isn't it?
The longer I live and the more Scriptures I read, the more I believe every atom is moved by His will alone.
And what a glorious fact that is. Regardless of the struggle and pain men experience in life, it is all prelude to His plans for our eternal souls.
None who seeks Him is turned away, yet all who desires Him does so because God predestined their pursuit.
Men find it difficult to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time. But God doesn't have that limitation. Thus these two presuppositions, "we act as our natures dictate," and "everything happens by God's will," can and do co-exist. Indeed, they must, if God is who He says He is.
"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- Lamentations 3:37
IMO, if we see His hand in every instance of our lives, we will worry a great deal less and strive a whole lot harder to do His will.
Ultimately, if we are faithful to Scripture, there is no downside to believing God controls His creation.
Who better?
I've read some of Frame's stuff and a teaching elder friend of mine in the PCA was a student of his, I believe at RTS in Florida. I have been informed that Frame's classes are not the easiest. Of course, how hard can a Presbyterian be. ;^) (I don't really know if Frame is Presby, but my memory does seem to tell me that RTS produces a lot of Presbyterians.)
Somehow, I doubt that Frame's arguments (of which I'll freely admit to stealing for my own on occation) will persuade jo kus. It is as I have said, repeatedly: In order for you to overthrow the axiom of total Divine Providence in all things, you must either overthrow God's Omnisicence or his Omnipotence, both I believe jo kus attacks in his desire to be the master of his own fate.
Agree. In the final analysis, there is only one uncaused cause, one unmoved mover. We are not Deists. We believe in Divine Providence. A loving God is involved in His creation. In some cases, God directly intervenes, and in others, He allows, knowing a greater good will come from an event. But as Scripture says, there is an involvement, also, between man and God - not just a legal exercise. We have a familial relationship with Him, one where we are expected to cooperate and respond to His enabling graces. The degree of this cooperation is open to discussion in the Church - but it exists at some level. Determinism is not the Christianity of the first 1500 years. Fatalism was a pagan attitude that even many Greeks had a disdain for.
Brother in Christ
And just where did you get THAT definition for Divine Providence?
Please cite your source.
You mean that God wants a covenant relationship, one of love, with mankind? Four thousand years and more of the Judeo-Christian heritage and reading of the Scriptures. What would your definition be?
Regards
ping for read
It seems you are having a difficult time with "secondary causes". Perhaps a closer reading of Augustine will set things straight. In his book "Nature and Grace", he discusses quite often that man has free will and man cooperates with God. He understands this in a secondary sense.
For example, some Chapter headings:
CHAP. 25 [XXIII.] -- GOD FORSAKES ONLY THOSE WHO DESERVE TO BE FORSAKEN. WE ARE SUFFICIENT OF OURSELVES TO COMMIT SIN; BUT NOT TO RETURN TO THE WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. DEATH IS THE PUNISHMENT, NOT THE CAUSE OF SIN. (God does not POSITIVELY REPROBATE ANYONE - my emphasis)
CHAP. 29 [XXVI.] -- A SIMILE TO SHOW THAT GOD'S GRACE IS NECESSARY FOR DOING ANY] GOOD WORK WHATEVER. GOD NEVER FORSAKES THE JUSTIFIED MAN IF HE BE NOT HIMSELF FORSAKEN. (Catholics have been saying this all along - my emphasis)
CHAP. 50 [XLIII.] -- GOD COMMANDS NO IMPOSSIBILITIES. (It is utterly ridiculous to think that God commands us to do things we cannot do - if a person had been refused grace, how could he obey God? - my emphasis)
CHAP. 54 [XLVI.] -- THERE IS NO INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN NECESSITY AND FREE WILL. (don't confuse primary and secondary causes - my emphasis)
CHAP. 58 -- EVEN PIOUS AND GOD-FEARING MEN RESIST GRACE. (It is not Scriptural to say that man cannot resist God's grace - my emphasis)
CHAP. 68 [LVIII.]--DESPITE THE DEVIL, MAN MAY, BY GOD'S HELP, BE PERFECTED (COOPERATION WITH GOD - my emphasis)
CHAP. 77.--XYSTUS.
What Christian, again, is unaware of what he quotes the most blessed Xystus, bishop of Rome and martyr of Christ, as having said, "God has conferred upon men liberty of their own will, in order that by purity and sinlessness of life they may become like unto God?" But the man who appeals to free will ought to listen and believe, and ask Him in whom he believes to give him His assistance not to sin...
As can be seen, the Calvinist cannot "claim" Augustine. Just in this one book, he places forth the Catholic viewpoint of the cooperation of nature and grace. He talks about free will. Yet, he talks about All from God. Thus, the primary cause of all things is God, but we are expected to respond to God. Unfortunately, Calvin didn't understand the concept of secondary causes or the idea of necessity.
OF COURSE God is supremely omniscent and omnipotent. We don't take that away by saying that we cannot do anything on our own and require God to lead us to Him. You are taking a too-extreme view and forgeting that Scripture time and again tells us that God is our helper, that He leads us, that we can reject Him, and so forth. How can one NOT interpret this language in a way that it is clear that God and us work together and that grace is NOT irrestible? You disregard parts of Scripture. It is important when looking to Scripture to balance ALL of its verses to come to an analogy of the faith. Christianity before Calvin did not believe in irrestible grace, and certainly not postive reprobation. ALL writers that I have come across PRESUME that God is active within us to move our will to do the good - yet, we are not entirely passive in our repentance, faith, and good deeds. This idea comes from the TOTAL Depravity of man - again, a novel idea of the Reformation.
Regards
As the author points out there are many types of determinism philosophies. For Christians to broad brush determinism is to not understand the complete picture of determinism. I believe you are confusing determinism with free will.
Most Christians are, and especially the early church fathers were, theological determinists; that is to say those “who hold that all events occur exactly as God has foreordained them”. Otherwise you have to deny God is in control of anything. Instead of God telling Mary she would give birth to His Son, God would have to ask permission. God has to determine something! I’m confident you would agree that you are a theological determinist. What you’re bringing up is the type of free will a person has under a theological determinist model.
Most Christians today believe in the libertarian position of free will which is what you are arguing. In other words, no matter what I choose to do, I might equally have chosen the opposite. But as the author points out, while a number of church leaders have held this view (not Augustine btw) scripture does not support the libertarian position (e.g. ascribing divine causes to human decisions). The author points out a number of excellent verses (Exod. 34:24, Is. 44:28, Dan. 1:9, John 19:24, Acts 13:48, 16:14), even sinful ones (Gen. 45:5-8, Ps. 105:24, Luke 22:22, Acts 2:23-24, 3:18, 4:27-28, Rom. 9:17). I’ll use only one:
It wasn’t based upon Daniel’s wise choices that the officials were pleased with Daniel. It was based upon God granting Daniel favor. Consequently the libertarian position of free will is not supported by scripture.
The author points out the freedom of natural necessity model of free will (or events of which the causes are uncertain and normally uncontrollable) makes more sense from a biblical perspective. It is like flipping a coin. We know the probability of a coin coming up heads will be 50% but we have no certainty that the next time when we flip the coin a head will appear. We could flip that coin 400 times and God can always make it turn up heads. God controls the events with a predefined outcome. Likewise our actions are also “softly” controlled. Man guides his feet but God directs his path. As the author points out this isn’t fatalism. This is simply God exercising control over His creation.
1. God the good Creator of all things, in his infinite power, and wisdom, doth (a) uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all Creatures, and things, from the greatest even to the (b) least, by his most wise and holy providence, to the end for the which they were Created; according unto his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable Councel of his (c) own will; to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, infinite goodness and mercy.
5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God, doth oftentimes, leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations, and the corruptions of their own heart, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, (p) that they may be humbled; and to raise them to a more close, and constant dependence for their support, upon himself; and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for other just and holy ends.
6. As for those wicked and ungodly men, whom God as a righteous judge, for former sin doth (r) blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his (s) Grace, whereby they might have been inlightned in their understanding, and wrought upon in their hearts: But sometimes also withdraweth (t) the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such (u) objects as their corruptions makes occasion of sin; and withall (x) gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass, that they (y) harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softning of others.
u Deut. 2.30. 2 King. 8.12,13.
x Psal. 81.11,12. 2 Thes. 2.10,11,12.
y Exod. 8.15.32. Is. 6.9,10. 1 Pet. 2.7,8.
Perhaps you are correct. It is a fine line. On the surface, determinism sounds awfully close to fatalism, which has no room for free choice.
The "problem", as I see it, is that we are dealing with what is called a paradox. Christianity is full of such tensions, if you will. We must maintain BOTH sides of these paradoxes to maintain the full Christianity, - the Virgin Mother, The God/Man, we are to follow authority/we are free...Our discussion is another one. Man has free will and responsibility/God foreordains. I believe we CAN define terms where we do not contradict, yet do justice to BOTH sides of Scripture on the subject.
Most Christians today believe in the libertarian position of free will which is what you are arguing. In other words, no matter what I choose to do, I might equally have chosen the opposite
I disagree with that position. The word "equally" makes the proposition incorrect. If God is granting us efficacious grace, it WILL be effective. But when is something efficacious? Before or after given??? Pure speculation. But man CANNOT equally choose good or evil. He can ONLY choose good if God allows it and grants the necessary grace to do it. The BEST we can do is be neutral when choosing to do something WITHOUT God.
scripture does not support the libertarian position (e.g. ascribing divine causes to human decisions).
Scripture supports a number of times when God DOES await man's "decision". One example is when the Scripture talks about the Book spoken of in Revelation. Christ mentions that one's name can be blotted out from this book - as does Ezekiel, I believe. Again, we have a paradox.
It wasn’t based upon Daniel’s wise choices that the officials were pleased with Daniel. It was based upon God granting Daniel favor. Consequently the libertarian position of free will is not supported by scripture.
Your line of thought seems to say this...Either God does all, or man does all. You refuse to see that when the Spirit enters a man and grants the gifts of grace, that there is a cooperation taking place. We become ONE with God - so that what He does through me, I can also take credit for doing it. Thus, Scripture often times gives the credit to God for an action, and in other verses, gives the credit to man. Often times, there is even in the same context the idea that God is the helper of man. There is a "working together" taking place. Your verses do NOT exclude Daniel as ALSO being active in accepting God's graces.
So we have a paradox, two truths that do not contradict. But we MUST NOT remove EITHER truth in a rationalist attempt to explain the faith. Rationalization of mystery only leads to watering down the truth of Christianity. Thus, those who water down the Incarnation – the God/Man, cannot understand how God can actually infuse man with His own self, how God and man can become an amalgamation so that they can work together.
We cannot come to the complete truth of Him while we remain on earth. By understanding God as allowing what I have noted as “secondary causes” or “secondary movers”, we can then come to some explanation of the various Scripture that has man choosing or rejecting God. I find James’s term “soft” determinism interesting, but it ignores that we are speaking of Divine Mystery – it is not wholly subject to pragmaticism or rationalization. We read the Scriptures and look to our ancestors' interpretations and conclude that we must accept both propositions. God's Divine Supremacy is not ignored IF God WILLINGLY awaits on the human to accept or reject. Calvin attempts to take this option away from God; taking away God's freedom is not better than taking away His Divine Sovereignty, is it? We must maintain both in tension with each other
Brother in Christ
Although in relation to the foreknowledge and Decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass (Act. 2.23.) immutably and infallibly; so that there is not any thing, befalls any (Pro. 16.33.) by chance, or without his Providence; yet by the same Providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either (Gen. 8.22.) necessarily, freely, or contingently.
1.) Omniscience -- Not only His perfect Foreknowledge of all that is and will be within creation, but also, Alone in Eternity, having not yet spoken the first word of creation, His perfect Foreknowledge all possibilities -- i.e., His perfect foreknowledge of an infinite number of possible choice of how to create and the operations of Free Will in each and every possible Creation.
2.) Omnipotence -- Alone in Eternity, God enjoys perfectly Sovereign and Inviolate Freedom of Action.
And you have just given the Pauline-Petrine-Johannine-Augustinian-Calvinist the entire debate. If God, alone in Eternity, foreknows all possible creations and knows the operations of free will each from beginning to end and with freedom of action creates the creation of his choosing, then simply by the very act of creation he has Predestined all that will ever occur in creation.
Tell me, jo kus, exactly which 2 requirements of the axiom that I have laid out do you find repugnant. And, if you find nothing wrong with them, then you have absolutely NO leg upon which to stand to object to the idea that all things in creation are ordered and given by Divine Providence, even the free choices of men and the idea of "secondary causes":
"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." ~ Matthew 11:21
If the Lord had ordained that the mighty works be done in Tyre & Sidon that were worked in Chorazin, then what is the certain free choices of men in response to the miracles of God: they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. This is indisputable.
God knew precisely what it would take to cause Tyre and Sidon to freely repent of their sins.
God knew precisely what it would take to cause Sodom to repent and remain to this day.
This is EXPLICITLY declared in Scripture.
And God chose NOT to perform those acts of grace in those cities which resulted in exactly what God foreknew would happen: the non-repentance of those cities. The Lord had it in his hand what it would take for Sodom to freely repent. The Lord was purposed to destroy Sodom. The Lord denied Sodom the miracles which would have caused her to remain to this day. The destiny of all things are held in his nail scarred hands.
So, I ask again, where precisely is your disagreement with this axiom, jo kus. It cannot be in the idea of second causes for it is explicitly laid out in the Scriptures that secondary causes are given by Divine Providence.
I am unwilling to accept in my heart a faith that fails to convince my mind.
I agree. Everything is given by God. But your conclusions reach too far. Calvinism, unlike the rest of the Christians that you named, did not come down on one side of the paradox we speak of, ignoring the other - namely, that God "awaits" a response from us in time, a decision that God has already foreseen in eternity. Also, there is definitely a sense of God "allowing" man this free will to choose or reject Him. Here is what the Catechism says on Providence and Secondary Causes:
CCC 306. God is the sovereign master of His plan. But to carry it out, He also makes use of His creature’s cooperation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather, a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants His creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of cooperation in the accomplishment of His plan.
CCC 307. To human beings, God even gives the power of freely sharing in His providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it (Gen 1:26-28). God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers, and their sufferings (Col 1:24). They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for His Kingdom (1 Cor 3:9; 1 Thess 3:2; Col 4:11).
CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of His creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil 2:13, cf. 1 Cor 12:6). Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom, and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for “without a Creator the creature vanishes” (Gaudium et Spes 36, 3). Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace (Mt 19:26; Jn 15:5; 14:13).
Scripture is full of verses that talk about man being "fellow workers" with God (1 Cor 3:8-10; 1 Cor 6:1; cf Phil 2:12-13). Throughout the Scriptures, God is called a "helper" of man (Ex 18:3-5; Deut 33:29; Ps 27:9; Ps 118:7; Heb 13:6; etc.). God seemingly "awaits" man's response - "and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it". (Jer 18:10).
And finally, these questions come to mind when one ignores cooperation that God chooses to partake in with man -
Why does God make a covenant - and man accepts it?
Why does God command men to do good if that man has not received grace to do it?
Why are men condemned AFTER they have committed evil?
How is man saved by faith in Christ? If God irrestibly has chosen, we are NOT saved by faith in Christ...
If grace is a gift, why can't it be rejected? Gifts can be accepted or rejected.
There is NO DOUBT that God and man partake in a relationship of love where God gives of Himself. This is what love does. God gives man the choice, guided and foreseen as it is by Him, to choose or reject God. This is GOD'S FREE WILL. If man has nothing to do with his own salvation, how can one justify that "God desires all men to be saved" - and ALL men are not? If it is God ALONE without man's response taken into account, then God DOES NOT desire all men to be saved. The answer, of course, is that God allows man to reject His will - and this free will, as you note, IS God's Will.
I am unwilling to accept in my heart a faith that fails to convince my mind.
Beware of that, friend. Faith leads to understanding, not the other way around. We are fallen creatures - our foolishness is not God's Ways. Thus, we must realize that there is mystery involved in God. We cannot comprehend Him. In cases such as this, we must accept both sides of the paradox - and not ignoring one side to hold up the other. In a sense, you are correct - All is from God. But to ignore our cooperation with God (which He allows) is to destroy the paradox outlined in Scripture.
Regards
A God who waits on man is an oxymoron. God "awaits" nothing but His own good pleasure, which, because He is God, is already known to Him.
If God "foresees" a man's decision to deny Him, and yet God creates Him anyway, how is that any different from God determining that man's fate?
It's the same thing; a distinction without a difference, a stubborn struggle to maintain human autonomy where none exists.
"Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them." -- Psalm 139:16
Before we were even conceived, God knew us because we were created by Him exactly as He determined down to the number of heartbeats, hairs on our head, and our eternal destination.
that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth" -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-13"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
When Lord_calvinus writes, "I am unwilling to accept in my heart a faith that fails to convince my mind," you respond with a caution, "Beware of that, friend."
But L-C is exactly correct. We are given our hearts and minds by God alone who created everything for His purpose. Thank God, He has opened our eyes and ears, and rebirthed our fallen hearts, in order for you and me to "receive" faith in Jesus Christ.
"Righteous are You, O LORD, when I plead with You; Yet let me talk with You about Your judgments. Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?
You have planted them, yes, they have taken root; They grow, yes, they bear fruit. You are near in their mouth But far from their mind." -- Jeremiah 12:1-2
The Calvinist cannot comprehend a God who shrugs and looks away. He's either God, or He's not.
Doc, thank you for summing up my entire faith in a mere 17 words.
LOL. I know what you mean. When it finally penetrates our thick skulls that God is who He says He is, it's a glorious moment indeed.
Thank God our salvation does not depend on us, but on the finished work of Christ resurrected.
***Faith leads to understanding, not the other way around.***
And, of course, you have a verse which teaches that if you will just believe then you will also understand. That sounds to me rather like what the cults try and get you to do in order to brainwash you.
No offense!
You will simply have to back that one with Scripture.
Again, with all due respect, you are lumping different types of determinism together. You have to separate theological determinism from other types of determinisms. Once you’ve accepted theological determinism then you have to come to some sort of understanding of free choice.
Christianity is full of such tensions, if you will. We must maintain BOTH sides of these paradoxes to maintain the full Christianity
I maintain there is no tension in Christianity. God is righteous and just. Man is unrighteous and unjust. The only way man can be righteous and just is for God to pull him to the other side. Christianity only seems like it is full of tension because man’s soteriology insists on it.
He can ONLY choose good if God allows it and grants the necessary grace to do it.
I agree. But isn’t that theological determinism? And what of man’s “choice”? Does God allow this for everyone?
Scripture supports a number of times when God DOES await man's "decision".
Doesn’t God know what that person will do? Why does God await man’s “decision”? I would suggest you are misinterpreting those verses otherwise you are into Open Theism where God doesn't know everything there is to know (omniscience).
Your line of thought seems to say this...Either God does all, or man does all. You refuse to see that when the Spirit enters a man and grants the gifts of grace, that there is a cooperation taking place. We become ONE with God - so that what He does through me, I can also take credit for doing it.”
God does it all-that is absolutely my line of thought. You and I CANNOT take credit for anything less any man should boast.
I don't know how much more you can add to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.