I think the problem is that most Calvinists don’t understand what Arminius actually taught about free will. Remember, Arminius agreed with Calvin on the depravity of man. And I believe some of you can testify that I have, in many posts, said that apart from God’s intervention, no man would ever think about God. Fallen man, left on his own, remains fallen. Period.
Now, let’s jump over salvation for a moment, and look at the state of a man who has rejected God - either because he chose to reject God (Arminian), or because God would not allow him to accept the offer (Calvin).
God judges the heart. The problem of sin is not open to accounting. The problem is not that on 7 Sept 2007, Mr Rogers did X. The problem is rebellion against God. A believer still falls, but his basic nature has changed. He has switched allegiance, and WANTS to obey God - but wrestles with ‘the flesh’. The unbeliever doesn’t wrestle, because he hasn’t been born again. There is no new nature there to reject sin.
Thus Jesus said that men would be condemned for not believing. Not for a specific sin on a given day, but for not believing.
I think it is well established in scripture, and in detail in Romans 1, that those who reject God may be given over by God to the evil of their hearts. I also think that scripture teaches that God can and will then cause those men to do certain things. A man who has rejected God does NOT have free will. And if God makes him do something ‘wrong’, it doesn’t increase the man’s guilt, because a man’s guilt or innocence before God, according to Jesus, is if he believes God or not.
So what is free will, according to Jacob Arminius? [And I want to point out that the answer is coming from me. I think Arminius taught this, but I don’t spend time reading his writings.] However, as I understand it, Arminius taught that God gives prevenient grace to men. Prevenient merely means “antecedent, anticipatory”, so prevenient grace is just the grace of God acting before any response or action by man. It means the Holy Spirit has already acted, and is revealing God by God’s initiative to man.
Here is where Calvin and Arminius split. Calvin says that God’s prevenient grace is irresistible - that any time God reveals himself to a man he has chosen by name from before time, that man MUST accept the revelation. Arminius taught that God’s prevenient grace is given in some measure to every man (Romans 1) and can be resisted by man. That is, I think, what Arminius meant by ‘free will’. Not that all men get to do whatever they please, but that when God reveals himself to man, man can choose to accept (believe God) or reject (not believe).
If a man rejects God, God may or may not give up on him. God knows the heart (John 6) and he knows who will respond in time (Nicodemus), and who will never respond (Judas). And if the man will never respond, then God abandons him - as discussed in Romans 1: “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” and in Genesis 6: “Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
But notice what came first: “For even though they knew God...”
Those who believe in an accounting system (good deeds give you merits, bad one demerits, and God’s judgement totals up your score) say this makes God unjust, because he is making the man do something “wrong”. But God does NOT judge on the accounting system. “18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” A man who does not believe God is not made any less a believer because he does a specific sin on a specific day.
Further, the acts done by those whose hearts God hardens in scripture are not evil, by themselves. Pharaoh refused to free his slaves. That was not, of itself, an evil act by the morals of the day. God hardened his heart, but not to commit an evil act.
Now, let’s look at the objections of Db88:
“I mean, if one does not catch the manipulation of history here, one has his head so trained to love “free will” that they cannot, no will not, hear this episode is (and all episodes are) being played out as God’s script. That is how God by His predetermined plan got His own Son crucified on the precise day needed to fulfill prophecy. The Scriptures are replete with such manipulation and control.”
False. God can and will intervene, although the scriptures don’t make it seem he does so very directly very often. There are a limited number of times scripture says God hardens someone’s heart, and it is usually done with a leader. “harden” and “heart” is found in 5 verses of the KJV, and 2 of those apply to hardening their own hearts. “hardened” and “heart” occurs in 23 verses in the KJV. It is used of Pharaoh, Sihon king of Heshbon, and of the nation Israel in Isaiah. That is not an all-inclusive list, but it should suffice to show that God hardening someone’s heart isn’t exactly a daily occurrence.
And there is something else to note: it says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, not that God changed it. Pharaoh still did what Pharaoh wanted to do. Someone’s resolve cannot be hardened unless they first have the resolve. Someone’s heart cannot be said to be hardened unless they first desired that course of action.
With regard to the Jews of Paul’s day, their hardness of heart is based on their unbelief:
“17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.”
Look at 20: “They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.” Paul does NOT say they were rejected because their names were not on God’s list. He does not say God’s election of individuals (something Paul NEVER discusses) determines it - but belief. “their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith”.
And we Gentiles are warned not to become proud or calloused ourselves, but to “continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Db88 writes: “The number of possible derailments from a prophet’s predicted outcome are beyond infinite, if each man’s decisions could be nearly infinite. Add the infinite possibilities of the weather, a rock falling from the ledge, a big dog scaring the man away and you have no possibility of a prophet getting anything right. Not if every man is truly free in every decision. Not even God can know.”
Again, this confuses fore-knowing with compelling. Being finite beings wrapped up in time, there are no perfect analogies to fore-knowing perfectly. That he directly intervenes at times is undeniable. He raised Pharaoh for His glory. I take that to mean he choose an unbelieving, obstinate man and placed him in power as Pharaoh, and he then hardened Pharaoh’s heart, making the rescue of Israel as hard as possible - to demonstrate God’s power.
On the political side, I believe God has raised up Obama to test America. Will we harden our hearts, or repent? But that doesn’t mean Obama is being made to do something he does not want to do - just that God has placed the person there as a test of America’s morality.
There are only a handful of times scripture talks about God hardening the heart of an individual, and most of those pertain to a political leader. There are thousands of times man is said to make decisions.
Abraham believed. Subject, verb. Subjects DO verbs. We never find God giving saving faith to anyone as a gift. We never find Paul saying, “When God gave me belief”, or Jesus saying, “If I give you belief”. Instead, we find people rebuked for lacking belief, or even Jesus being surprised by the Centurion’s belief.
This is in complete accord with Arminian thought - that when God reaches down to us, WE are responsible for our response to Him. It is in direct contrast to Calvin’s thought, since Calvin would need scripture to say, “And Abraham was given belief, and the belief he received was counted as righteousness.”
When Jesus said, “Repent and believe the Gospel”, Jesus wasn’t mocking those around him. He gave them a choice. In John 6, we see divine hardening at work. Many there are following Jesus, but their hearts don’t care about Jesus. And Jesus confronts them, and raises the confrontation higher and higher, until most leave him. He hardens their hearts. But some remain, and their hearts have been hardened FOR Jesus.
The error of Calvin was ignoring thousands of verses so he could dwell on a couple dozen, independent of context. Maybe that is what happens when you write a systematic theology text in your twenties. Or maybe it came from reading too much of Augustine, and too little of the gospels.
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Jesus is telling men to DO something, and also that refusing has consequences:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” - John 5
Okay, I hope you had a terrific, and grateful, Thanksgiving weekend. Now, down to business with a response to your excellent posts: Given - We both want the Scriptures to be rightly represented, we both want the character of God to be rightly represented, we both have little concern defending men of theological notoriety (you, Arminius; me, Calvin). These are all good ambitions. Hopefully, we can preserve them in this discussion.
Your post covered a lot of territory; to respond I’ll have to take it in smaller pieces.
First, it seems that the central question here is does the Bible teach ‘free will’ or does it teach a divine determinism?”
To get us off on the right foot (if I have the question framed correctly), let us make certain we understand terms the same way. By “free will” I mean, “the unaided, uneffected decision making capacity available to all men.” (notice not “unaffected”, but uneffected). There are no “trick” components to this definition. If it is not correct, let me know (or provide corrections before we get too far down the street).
But, if the definition is correct then an example of “free will” in use would mean if a man decides to go downtown, he arrived at a choice to do so through nothing other than his own mental cogitations. He alone made the determination to attempt this act/thought.
If we are still in harmony, here, let me add that I don’t contend “free will” implies the man must succeed at any particular endeavor to have had “free will”. Any one of a million factors may prevent him from accomplishing his choice. Just deciding to try, completely free from anything other than himself, is sufficient to demonstrate “free will”. The only “internal” factors which move a man to decide something (to sin, to love, to turn to Christ, etc.) are those which belong to him.
Let me qualify one important exception. Since you hold to a “prevenient” grace (that is, an antecedent) given to all men, all men now have the equipment on board to turn to Christ...should they decide. They alone will have made that decision. God has done all He will do, it is up to them, now. Again, this is not a trick remark.
Further, I am not denying that other ingredients or inputs may exist in, or impinge upon, the man’s thinking prior to the point of decision. But, man possesses the capacity of deciding on his own. Actually, all kinds of factors will impact the man’s thinking prior, but “unaided or uneffected” means (in my understanding) that in the final analysis only the man’s will was causing his choice. In other words, I am understanding “free will” to refer solely to whether the man remains “free” to choose following all inputs, whatever those may be. Free will, if I understand it correctly, maintains that the man, at the point of a decision, has only to look to his own mental/spiritual/emotional faculties in order to bring about any given decision. Thus, even if he decides due to his fear, his lust, his anger, his integrity, or his whatever, the actual choosing is his, alone.
I added this final part because holding a gun on a man’s family in order to make him sign a confession is not contemplated as proving or disproving “free will”. Coercion and has nothing to do with “free will”. One man sign and the other hold out. Both could still have “free will”, if “free will” is true. As I said, this is not a trick definition.
Divine determinism, on the other hand, contends that man’s thought processes are influenced at all times by God, Himself and every decision is actually the outworking of God’s will.
Do we agree so far?