The nature of human free will

PREDESTINATION seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out his scenario.

To get a handle on the puzzling relationship between predestination and free will, we must first define free will. That definition itself is a matter of great debate. Probably the most common definition says free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.

On the surface this is very appealing. There are no elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems. On the one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens—it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it—then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives.

Consider the case of Joseph and his brothers. When Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, God’s providence was at work. Years later, when Joseph was reunited with his brothers in Egypt, he declared to them, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Here the motive was the decisive factor determining whether the act was good or evil. God’s involvement in Joseph’s dilemma was good; the brothers’ involvement was evil. There was a reason why Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. They had an evil motivation. Their decision was neither spontaneous nor neutral. They were jealous of their brother. Their choice to sell him was prompted by their evil desires.

The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral, why would it choose the right or the left? It is something like the problem encountered by Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire cat in the tree. She asked the cat, “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice answered, “I don’t know.” “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”

Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.

Another famous illustration of the same problem is found in the story of the neutral-willed mule. The mule had no prior desires, or equal desires in two directions. His owner put a basket of oats to his left and a basket of wheat on his right. If the mule had no desire whatsoever for either oats or wheat he would choose neither and starve. If he had an exactly equal disposition toward oats as he had toward wheat he would still starve. His equal disposition would leave him paralyzed. There would be no motive. Without motive there would be no choice. Without choice there would be no food. Without food soon there would be no mule.

We must reject the neutral-will theory not only because it is irrational but because, as we shall see, it is radically unbiblical.

Christian thinkers have given us two very important definitions of free will. We will consider first the definition offered by Jonathan Edwards in his classic work, On the Freedom of the Will.

Edwards defined the will as “the mind choosing.” Before we ever can make moral choices we must first have some idea of what it is we are choosing. Our selection is then based upon what the mind approves or rejects. Our understanding of values has a crucial role to play in our decision-making. My inclinations and motives as well as my actual choices are shaped by my mind. Again, if the mind is not involved, then the choice is made for no reason and with no reason. It is then an arbitrary and morally meaningless act. Instinct and choice are two different things.

A second definition of free will is “the ability to choose what we want.” This rests on the important foundation of human desire. To have free will is to be able to choose according to our desires. Here desire plays the vital role of providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice.

Now for the tricky part. According to Edwards a human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. What I call Edwards Law of Choice is this: “The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment.” This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined.

I said it was tricky. This sounds like a blatant contradiction to say that every choice is free and yet every choice is determined. But “determined” here does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one’s internal motivation or desire. In shorthand the law is this: Our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination, which is the essence of freedom.

Think for a minute about your own choices. How and why are they made? At this very instant you are reading the pages of this book. Why? Did you pick up this book because you have an interest in the subject of predestination, a desire to learn more about this complex subject? Perhaps. Maybe this book has been given to you to read as an assignment. Perhaps you are thinking, “I have no desire to read this whatsoever. I have to read it, and I am grimly wading through it to fulfill somebody else’s desire that I read it. All things being equal I would never choose to read this book.”

But all things are not equal, are they? If you are reading this out of some kind of duty or to fulfill a requirement, you still had to make a decision about fulfilling the requirement or not fulfilling the requirement. You obviously decided that it was better or more desirable for you to read this than to leave it unread. Of that much I am sure, or you would not be reading it right now.

Every decision you make is made for a reason. The next time you go into a public place and choose a seat (in a theater, a classroom, a church building), ask yourself why you are sitting where you are sitting. Perhaps it is the only seat available and you prefer to sit rather than to stand. Perhaps you discover that there is an almost unconscious pattern emerging in your seating decisions. Maybe you discover that whenever possible you sit toward the front of the room or toward the rear. Why? Maybe it has something to do with your eyesight. Perhaps you are shy or gregarious. You may think that you sit where you sit for no reason, but the seat that you choose will always be chosen by the strongest inclination you have at the moment of decision. That inclination may merely be that the seat closest to you is free and that you don’t like to walk long distances to find a place to sit down.

Decision-making is a complex matter because the options we encounter are often varied and many. Add to that that we are creatures with many and varied desires. We have different, often even conflicting, motivations.

Consider the matter of ice cream cones. Oh, do I have trouble with ice cream cones and ice cream sundaes. I love ice cream. If it is possible to be addicted to ice cream then I must be classified as an ice cream addict. I am at least fifteen pounds overweight, and I am sure that at least twenty of the pounds that make up my body are there because of ice cream. Ice cream proves the adage to me, “A second on the lips; a lifetime on the hips.” And, “Those who indulge bulge.” Because of ice cream I have to buy my shirts with a bump in them.

Now, all things being equal, I would like to have a slim, trim body. I don’t like squeezing into my suits and having little old ladies pat me on the tummy. Tummy-patting seems to be an irresistible temptation for some folks. I know what I have to do to get rid of those excess pounds. I have to stop eating ice cream. So I go on a diet. I go on the diet because I want to go on the diet. I want to lose weight. I desire to look better. Everything is fine until someone invites me to Swenson’s. Swenson’s makes the greatest “Super Sundaes” in the world. I know I shouldn’t go to Swenson’s. But I like to go to Swenson’s. When the moment of decision comes I am faced with conflicting desires. I have a desire to be thin and I have a desire for a Super Sundae. Whichever desire is greater at the time of decision is the desire I will choose. It’s that simple.

Now consider my wife. As we prepare to celebrate our silver wedding anniversary I am aware that she is exactly the same weight as she was the day we were married. Her wedding gown still fits her perfectly. She has no great problem with ice cream. Most eating establishments only carry vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. Any of those make my mouth water, but they offer no enticement to my wife. Aha! But there is Baskin Robbins. They have pralines and cream ice cream. When we go to the mall and pass a Baskin Robbins my wife goes through a strange transformation. Her pace decelerates, her hands get clammy, and I can almost detect the beginning of salivation. (That’s salivation, not salvation.) Now she experiences the conflict of desires that assaults me daily.

We always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment. Even external acts of coercion cannot totally take away our freedom. Coercion involves acting with some kind of force, imposing choices upon people that, if left to themselves, they would not choose. I certainly have no desire to pay the kind of income taxes that the government makes me pay. I can refuse to pay them, but the consequences are less desirable than paying them. By threatening me with jail the government is able to impose its will upon me to pay taxes.

Or consider the case of armed robbery. A gunman steps up to me and says, “Your money or your life.” He has just restricted my options to two. All things being equal I have no desire to donate my money to him. There are far more worthy charities than he. But suddenly my desires have changed as a result of his act of external coercion. He is using force to provoke certain desires within me. Now I must choose between my desire to live and my desire to give him my money. I might as well give him the money because if he kills me he will take my money anyway. Some people might choose to refuse, saying, “I would rather die than choose to hand this gunman my money. He’ll have to take it from my dead body.”

In either case, a choice is made. And it is made according to the strongest inclination at the moment. Think, if you can, of any choice you have ever made that was not according to the strongest inclination you had at the moment of decision. What about sin? Every Christian has some desire in his heart to obey Christ. We love Christ and we want to please him. Yet every Christian sins. The hard truth is that at the moment of our sin we desire the sin more strongly than we desire to obey Christ. If we always desired to obey Christ more than we desired to sin, we would never sin.

Does not the Apostle Paul teach otherwise? Does he not recount for us a situation in which he acts against his desires? He says in Romans, “The good that I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do” (Rom. 7:19, KJV). Here it sounds as if, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, Paul is teaching clearly that there are times in which he acts against his strongest inclination.

It is extremely unlikely that the apostle is here giving us a revelation about the technical operation of the will. Rather, he is stating plainly what every one of us has experienced. We all have a desire to flee from sin. The “all things being equal” syndrome is in view here. All things being equal, I would like to be perfect. I would like to be rid of sin, just as I would like to be rid of my excess weight. But my desires do not remain constant. They fluctuate. When my stomach is full it is easy to go on a diet. When my stomach is empty my desire level changes. Temptations arise with the changing of my desires and appetites. Then I do things that, all things being equal, I would not want to do.

Paul sets before us the very real conflict of human desires, desires that yield evil choices. The Christian lives within a battlefield of conflicting desires. Christian growth involves the strengthening of desires to please Christ accompanied by the weakening of desires to sin. Paul called it the warfare between the flesh and the Spirit.

To say that we always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment is to say that we always choose what we want. At every point of choice we are free and self-determined. To be self-determined is not the same thing as determinism. Determinism means that we are forced or coerced to do things by external forces. External forces can, as we have seen, severely limit our options, but they cannot destroy choice altogether. They cannot impose delight in things we hate. When that happens, when hatred turns to delight, it is a matter of persuasion, not coercion. I cannot be forced to do what I take delight in doing already.

The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous desires produce righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices.

The only difference is that they believed that one could say 'no' to the call and reject it.

I find that to be questionable. If one knows his true condition before God (because God has revealed it to him), why would he reject the only escape route there is? That would be irrational. That raises the question that if the man chose to reject God, did he truly have a revelation from God concerning his true condition? I think at this point the standard for measurement rests with God, and not with our own perception.

Choosing God is not an alternative for Him until God gives Him light and shows him the alternatives between darkness and light.

You're the first Arminian I've encountered who would make that statement. Thank you. That is a point that many of us have been trying to emphasize all along.

Thus, at that point, man can reject the call of the Holy Spirit, who is shedding light into the soul, the entrance of thy word giveth light...(Psa.119:30)

Here's where I disagree. I don't believe that anyone to whom God has revealed the true condition of his soul could reject God's offer of salvation. It has to do with God's calling and election. To whom God gives grace, He gives grace such that the decision is a forgone fact from God's side, but freely made from man's side. Even when there is only one real choice, the man must still choose to respond, even though he can really do nothing other, due to the compelling nature of God's call. If he even considers rejectiong the call, he would immediately dismiss such an obviously crazy idea out of hand.

Explain to me how God could harden Pharaoh's heart, yet hold Pharaoh accountable for all that he did.

Moreover, no one denies that all men deserve death, however, the question is why some are saved when all could be saved but aren't (despite what God states in Scripture).

Let me drive to what I'm getting at. In your view of foreknowledge, God clearly knows the inner workings of man's mind since He knows the choice man will make for or against Him. Now if the choice man makes is a result of weighing factors, whatever they may be, which of those factors does God not have control over? Clearly God intervenes and acts within our lives. Does He not then have the power to bring about a certain desired choice in our lives?

If, as some Arminians here have stated, the decision man makes for/against Christ is something at the core of his being that cannot be changed regardless of circumstance, is that not then a core trait of his creation (of which God is the author)? What does man have that has not been given to him by God? If man makes the wrong choice by means of some deficiency in character or intellect, is that deficiency not either the result of the external environment (which an omnipotent God has control over) or basic personality (which God authored)?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? I could accept your position as valid if I didn't believe that God was willing and able to work actively and effectively in the lives of His creation. Am I to believe that the events in my life that led to my conversion...the events that all seemed to come together at the right time...were really just coincidence or played no real part in my conversion? Or was I just "less resistant" to the Spirit? Why could I have been more resistant? My childhood experience? Other factors? Doesn't God have a hand in those things too? Couldn't they have been avoided? Or was it something etched in my phsyche from the beginning? If so, doesn't that mean God put it there?

You've given me all the "how's" as far as making a choice (the mechanics if you will), but still haven't given me the "why's."

Yes, all do receive enough revelation to make fair choice to have desire to know God, even though they must wait for God to reveal Himself to them.

So, tell me. If faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, how does the cliched native in the middle of teh jungle who's never heard the gospel have a fair choice? Obviously his rejection of the general revelation of God and his refusal to acknowledge God as God condemns him, but if he never hears the gospel how does he make a fair choice?

No, an influence is just a power, one that can be resisted if one is influenced by something else. Thus, our flesh is one influence, while the Power of the Holy Spirit is another. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other, which is decided by our own will choosing between the two.

So we don't choose by desire, but by coercion?

So, let us get to the nitty-gritty, when you sin, whose will are you doing, God's or your own?

Both. Mine actively, God permissively. Can't wait to hear your reply to that one :D

I've just had an epiphany, it's all so very clear to me now... The eternal argument of Predestination and Free Will can be understood in the mere act of a sneeze. I'll get to that in a moment.

If our lives are in fact predestined, where everything is in front of us... "planned" for us... one would say "free will does not exist, all has been determined by God"... Yet free will is a gift from God. If you are reading the book of your life, you most likely are reading one page at a time. To say that your life is written, is not to say that God wrote it, but to say that he has read it... You see, we must dispel this idea that God controls us as puppets on a stage for no other purpose than his amusement. Dispel the feeble minded thoughts that God kills, or does not kill. Saves some from tragedy but allows others to die. "Why me, why did I live? While so many others died." While yes, the only punishment for our sins is death, and through Christ, accepting Christ as our savior, our sins have been washed away. Does God know already who among us has been saved, Yes. Again though, are we all here for his amusement as puppets in his show... No. No, because of Free Will.

Back to the sneeze,
Consider this, a sneeze at times can not be stopped.. Is that to say that the sneeze was predestined and could not be stopped if one chooses... However to accept the sneeze for what it is and just let it fly... doesn't that feel great! And at times you would think, why would one want to stop a sneeze? When I see someone attempt to stop a sneeze, it pains me as much if not more than it may pain the other party. So let's look at the sneeze itself as the will of God Himself. His plan for us may be found in the "acceptance" of the sneeze. If we are aware of the sneeze, as we are aware of the Word. We then accept the sneeze and are then overwhelmed with a sense of release and fulfillment then a certain ease comes over us. Considering a sneeze as a natural occurrence, not an act of God is easy to do. Until you understand every natural occurrence is an act of God. What you then HAVE to understand is that not every act "of" God is an act "by" God. By this I'm not saying that by stopping a sneeze you have thwarted the will of God, but it didn't exactly feel natural did it? When we can come to an understanding within ourselves concerning this topic, regardless what we decide for our own selves, then we begin to live with a different view of day to day life... As that is where God's plan for us truly begins, with the breath of life into us... When you sneeze you take pause, the act begins to cleanse, your heart stops, and then with the first breath you take after a sneeze... you are reborn.

Moreover, no one denies that all men deserve death, however, the question is why some are saved when all could be saved but aren't (despite what God states in Scripture). Let me drive to what I'm getting at. In your view of foreknowledge, God clearly knows the inner workings of man's mind since He knows the choice man will make for or against Him. Now if the choice man makes is a result of weighing factors, whatever they may be, which of those factors does God not have control over?

What God does not control is the evaluation of those factors.

Psa.19 and Romans 1 make it very clear that God reveals Himself equally to all men and thus, all men are held responsible for responding to the truth that God reveals to them.

Clearly God intervenes and acts within our lives.

Amen. Does He not then have the power to bring about a certain desired choice in our lives?

The issue is not 'power' which we know God has.

Moreover, there is no question about God accomplishing what He intends despite man's choices.

Thus, God wants only good for man, being a good God,(Matt.5:45), yet, since man rejects God, God accomplishes the good that He intends despite man's rejection (Psa.77:10), so we are not disagreeing that God controls history, only how He does so.

If God does not allow some choices (and by choice I mean alternatives to what God is commanding) on the part of man, God is thus, the author of what He is condemning and hates, Sin.

It makes Scripture a facade.

What you are trying to argue now is because God gave man the ability to choose, and man makes bad choices, God is still responsible!

God gave man the ability to make a decision uncontrolled by anyone but himself, it is thus, man who is responsible for using that will correctly and responding to God.

Free will is a gift of God to man, and if man misuses it, it is man's fault, not the fault of God or a defect in the gift itself.

No, what God 'foresaw' is that you would respond to those factors and thus, God used them to make a decision to believe in Christ.

No one doubts that God controls factors (Gen.20), what the Arminians say (at least in the classic sense, not the 'open theology' sense) is that God knows how one is going to respond or react to His efforts.

In the case of some it is hardening, in the case of some it is repentence.

Each individual is responsible for his own decisons on how he is responds to the truth that God reveals to him.

You've given me all the "how's" as far as making a choice (the mechanics if you will), but still haven't given me the "why's."

The 'why' is based on the individual evaluation of the truth and his desire or rejection of it.

Thus,that is a individual decision, that comes from many factors, but decided on one's own voliton.

Yes, all do receive enough revelation to make fair choice to have desire to know God, even though they must wait for God to reveal Himself to them. So, tell me. If faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, how does the cliched native in the middle of teh jungle who's never heard the gospel have a fair choice?Obviously his rejection of the general revelation of God and his refusal to acknowledge God as God condemns him, but if he never hears the gospel how does he make a fair choice?

LOL! Faith doesn't come by hearing and hearing by the word of God?

I guess that is yet another Scripture that doesn't mean what it says!

You Calvinists make me chuckle!

If that same 'native' is part of the Elect, God would get him the Gospel would he not?

So, if God can get Him the Gospel (because God is Omnipotent) since God had chosen Him in eternity past, why couldn't God get Him the Gospel if God knew that He would respond to it?

As for 'fairness', God doesn't have to get everyone the Gospel if He knows they are going to reject that Gospel.

He knows the heart of every individual and knows if they will respond to that Gospel.

That is why in Acts 13 Paul was prevented from going to Asia but was called to go to Macadonia.(Acts.16:6,9)

Now, let us use an historical example.

Slavers go into the deepest heart of Africa in the 17th century-18th century.

The bring slaves to the New World.

That same slave or his son now gets to hear Whitefield preach the Gospel.

Gee, how did God get the Gospel to them?

Many people are coming here from nations that do not allow the Gospel preached.

Many they or their children or grand-children will be positive and respond to it.

God knows what it takes to get someone who would respond to the Gospel saved and will move heaven and earth to get it done.

Is there anything impossible for God?

How did coercion get in here.

You choose between desires do you not?

The choice is base on what you want at the moment and thus, choose for.

How do you see coercion?

So, let us get to the nitty-gritty, when you sin, whose will are you doing, God's or your own? Both. Mine actively, God permissively. Can't wait to hear your reply to that one :D

Well, now, the appeal to a permissive will of God! LOL!

So, God doesn't want you to sin, yet you are resisting His directive will by doing so?

The permissive will is an Arminian view, one that Calvin rejected outright!

So, in effect, when you sin, you are doing your own will, and God is not controlling you, but allowing you to sin.

Sounds like free will to me! LOL!

The only difference is that they believed that one could say 'no' to the call and reject it. I find that to be questionable. If one knows his true condition before God (because God has revealed it to him), why would he reject the only escape route there is? That would be irrational. That raises the question that if the man chose to reject God, did he truly have a revelation from God concerning his true condition? I think at this point the standard for measurement rests with God, and not with our own perception.

Man is responsible for responding to God's revelation of Himself in nature and desiring to know God

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find Him, though he be not far from every one of us (Acts.17:28)

Now, if man rejects that free offer, displayed in nature, God will turn that same man over to his own lusts (Rom.1)

Choosing God is not an alternative for Him until God gives Him light and shows him the alternatives between darkness and light. You're the first Arminian I've encountered who would make that statement. Thank you. That is a point that many of us have been trying to emphasize all along.

Amen.

I did not know an Arminian who did not believe the above.

Thus, at that point, man can reject the call of the Holy Spirit, who is shedding light into the soul, the entrance of thy word giveth light...(Psa.119:30) Here's where I disagree. I don't believe that anyone to whom God has revealed the true condition of his soul could reject God's offer of salvation. It has to do with God's calling and election. To whom God gives grace, He gives grace such that the decision is a forgone fact from God's side, but freely made from man's side. Even when there is only one real choice, the man must still choose to respond, even though he can really do nothing other, due to the compelling nature of God's call. If he even considers rejectiong the call, he would immediately dismiss such an obviously crazy idea out of hand.

Well, it would be a crazy idea to resist such a call, but the Gospel goes out to all men yet, all do not respond, some reject it.

Now, it might be at the point of hearing that the rejection occurs, not allowing the light to penetrate, while those who do let the light in, all respond to that same light.

However, man's volition is involved somewhere in the process, since it is God's will that none perishes and thus, man is resisting what God wants for him.

Explain to me how God could harden Pharaoh's heart, yet hold Pharaoh accountable for all that he did.

Pharoah hardened his own heart as well (Exo.8)

Moreover, God will harden all those who do not respond to Him and turn them over to their own lusts.

This is spoken of throughout the Bible.

2Thess.2:11, Rom.1:24, 1Ki.22:20-22, Pr.1:26-32, Psa.106:14-15).

Man is responsible for responding to God's revelation of Himself in nature and desiring to know God

I don't know that I would put it quite that way. God's revelation of Himself in nature is a witness against man, more than anything, I think. As to man's ability to desire to know God, I don't think unregenerate man has that ability. In fact, just the opposite, he is afraid of God, and wants to hide from Him. A desire to know God would be part of the Grace and Calling (Election) of God, upon those whom He has chosen. In other words, as the scripture says, "It is God working in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13)

I did not know an Arminian who did not believe the above. (referring to the statement that the alternative to choose God is not available to man until God reveals Himself to man)

You'd be surprised at how many times that very statement has been attacked by Arminians arguing for a free and unlimited will on the part of man. If that is what Arminians believe (that the alternative to choose God is only available to those whom God reveals Himself to), then we're closer than we thought.

However, man's volition is involved somewhere in the process, since it is God's will that none perishes and thus, man is resisting what God wants for him.

We're back to the same old tired argument about limited vs unlimited atonement. There is ample evidence in scripture that God has created some for destruction (AntiChrist comes to mind right off...), and that God has designed the whole plan of salvation in such a way that only some will be saved. Our own observation bears this out. We all know of people who have died unsaved, and unpleasant though it may be, we know what their final end is. Now, does it make sense that God would will something, and not bring it to pass? If God wills that all men be saved, why cannot His will be carried out? I know you will say that God has granted man a free will which can reject God, but that is not quite accurate. Because of Adam's sin, all men are born in the position of already having rejected God. It is not a decision they make sometime after their birth, it is the condition they are born into. It's not a matter of choosing OR rejecting God, because the choice is already set initially, and it is only possible to change that condition by an act of God's active, elective Grace toward those whom He chooses. Those whom He does not choose are already judged, and only await the carrying out of the sentence. And scripture is plain that God does not choose everyone, for His own reasons, and ultimately for His own Glory.

Man is responsible for responding to God's revelation of Himself in nature and desiring to know God I don't know that I would put it quite that way. God's revelation of Himself in nature is a witness against man, more than anything, I think. As to man's ability to desire to know God, I don't think unregenerate man has that ability.

God says that they do (Acts.17:27)

In fact, just the opposite, he is afraid of God, and wants to hide from Him. A desire to know God would be part of the Grace and Calling (Election) of God, upon those whom He has chosen. In other words, as the scripture says, "It is God working in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13)

God desires all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4) and Christ said he would draw all men to him (Jn.12:32)

As for Phil.2:13 that is discussing one who is already saved, 'working out' the image of Christ that is now in him so that he can be conformed to that image (Rom.8).

When you give control to God after you are saved, he works from the inside out, while if you give control to your flesh, it works from the outside in.

I did not know an Arminian who did not believe the above. (referring to the statement that the alternative to choose God is not available to man until God reveals Himself to man) You'd be surprised at how many times that very statement has been attacked by Arminians arguing for a free and unlimited will on the part of man. If that is what Arminians believe (that the alternative to choose God is only available to those whom God reveals Himself to), then we're closer than we thought.

Well, God reveals himself to everyone, either indirectly through nature or directly through the Gospel.

Either way, the indivdual is responsible for responding to that revelation and wanting to know God.

However, man's volition is involved somewhere in the process, since it is God's will that none perishes and thus, man is resisting what God wants for him. We're back to the same old tired argument about limited vs unlimited atonement. There is ample evidence in scripture that God has created some for destruction (AntiChrist comes to mind right off...), and that God has designed the whole plan of salvation in such a way that only some will be saved. Our own observation bears this out. We all know of people who have died unsaved, and unpleasant though it may be, we know what their final end is. Now, does it make sense that God would will something, and not bring it to pass? If God wills that all men be saved, why cannot His will be carried out? I know you will say that God has granted man a free will which can reject God, but that is not quite accurate. Because of Adam's sin, all men are born in the position of already having rejected God. It is not a decision they make sometime after their birth, it is the condition they are born into. It's not a matter of choosing OR rejecting God, because the choice is already set initially, and it is only possible to change that condition by an act of God's active, elective Grace toward those whom He chooses. Those whom He does not choose are already judged, and only await the carrying out of the sentence. And scripture is plain that God does not choose everyone, for His own reasons, and ultimately for His own Glory.

No, what the Scripture is clear on is that God does want all men saved, that is why Calvinism has to run to a secret will to get out the contradictions in their own philiosphical construction.

You want to start after Adam, but how did Adam fall?

According to Calvin, that was also 'prearranged' so even Adam's 'free will' is a farce.

Moreover, you never have answered the verse in Rom.5:18 that clearly states what the 1st Adam did, was overshadowed by what the 2nd Adam did.

Thus, all men are now savable.

God will's all men to be saved and always knew that many would not be due to their own negative volition.

If this were predestinated before time, why was the lake of fire made for Satan and his angels and not the 'reprobated' (Matt.25)

You have adopted a system that makes God the author of sin and death, creates creatures for the sole purpose to send them to eternal torment, saves some out of the mass for no objective reason, and makes clear statments in His scripture meaningless and contradictory. And this for his 'glory'!

It is not the God of the Bible, but the god of Col.2:8.

I said: As to man's ability to desire to know God, I don't think unregenerate man has that ability.

You said: God says that they do (Acts.17:27)

Romans 1:18-32 shows that God's revelation of Himself in nature and the natural order is a witness against mankind, because they reject that knowledge and corrupt it. That is man's condition because of the Fall. No man since Adam has desired to know God apart from God first revealing the Gospel to him. God's general revelation is not the Gospel. God's general revelation stands as a witness against man. Unregenerate man does not have the ability to desire to know God.

God desires all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4) and Christ said he would draw all men to him (Jn.12:32)

If those were the only two verses dealing with the subject, you might have a point. But, scripture must be interpreted with the rest of scripture, and the meaning of these verses are tempered by the whole of God's revealed Word. God's Word is plain that all who are not found written in the Lamb's Book of Life will have their part in the Lake of Fire created for the Devil and his angels. Therefore, either you must allow that God's will was not/is not carried out in full (not all men were/are saved), or you must come to the realization that God's will is not fully stated in the verses you quoted. In essence, you make man's will something that can thwart the will of God, essentially something greater than God. That is absolutely impossible, else our faith is in vain.

Well, God reveals himself to everyone, either indirectly through nature or directly through the Gospel. Either way, the indivdual is responsible for responding to that revelation and wanting to know God.

God also says "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

I want you to answer this: Because of Adam's sin, all men are born in the position of already having rejected God. It is not a decision they make sometime after their birth, it is the condition they are born into. It's not a matter of choosing OR rejecting God, because the choice is already set initially, and it is only possible to change that condition by an act of God's active, elective Grace toward those whom He chooses. Those whom He does not choose are already judged, and only await the carrying out of the sentence. And scripture is plain that God does not choose everyone, for His own reasons, and ultimately for His own Glory.(posted in #67 by me) You have not answered that directly, but have instead lobbed general condemnations and invective against the Calvinist position. Let's deal with the issues, not with the overall "rightness" or "wrongness" of a position.

No, what God 'foresaw' is that you would respond to those factors and thus, God used them to make a decision to believe in Christ. No one doubts that God controls factors (Gen.20), what the Arminians say (at least in the classic sense, not the 'open theology' sense) is that God knows how one is going to respond or react to His efforts.

That assumes those 'factors' are static...that God has no choice but to allow history to unfold a certain way. If as you say it is an evaluation of 'factors', and as you say God is in control of those 'factors,' then cannot God, working with His wonderfully omniscient foresight, determine which 'factors' will bring about a desired result?

Thus,that is a individual decision, that comes from many factors, but decided on one's own voliton.

Your 'but' sticks out a bit, dec. If one weighs the factors, then decides against the obvious choice, then the decision is not made according to factors but according to something else. If you say it's made purely by volition, that's like saying something happens purely by chance without an external influence.

LOL! Faith doesn't come by hearing and hearing by the word of God? I guess that is yet another Scripture that doesn't mean what it says! You Calvinists make me chuckle!

Now you know that's not what I was saying, dec. If my wording choice was poor, I apologize...but do you really think in that statement I was trying to disprove a direct quote from Scripture? My point presupposes that statement, and then asks the question that if faith does come by hearing, how is it fair for a native in the jungle who never hears the gospel and thus never comes to faith, to be condemned for that choice? You say that God foresaw in advance that he wouldn't choose if presented with it, so He didn't bother to present it? Well, he's not being presented with it, so God was basing it on a hypothetical that never actually occurred. How many hypotheticals did God run through before He gave up? If He ran through say one billion different hypotheticals and no matter what that man did not choose, it seems to me that there's something wrong here...that something at the very core of this native's being is flawed or pre-disposed. And if that is the case, I submit that it is a direct result of God's creative power. Of course, this is operating logically from your position. Calvinism has a much better and simpler explanation.

As for 'fairness', God doesn't have to get everyone the Gospel if He knows they are going to reject that Gospel. He knows the heart of every individual and knows if they will respond to that Gospel.

Ahh...now we're getting somewhere. The crux of the issue, dec. It's more than just an academic evaluation of the factors...it's the condition of the heart. It's desire. If decisions were made purely on evaluations of factors, I would never eat a cheeseburger or ice cream. I know these things are bad for me nutritionally and that they contribute negatively to my overall health, but I desire them nonetheless. When you were talking before about choosing against desire, what you were really talking about was choosing against logic. EVERY CHOICE you make is ultimately according to desire. Not only us, but every choice God makes is according to desire, and praise Him that His desires are pure and good!

God knows what it takes to get someone who would respond to the Gospel saved and will move heaven and earth to get it done. Is there anything impossible for God?

According to you, it's impossible for Him to get some people to choose for Him no matter what He does. He can 'move heaven and earth' but they will never believe. And you STILL cannot explain to me why that is, Ed.

How did coercion get in here. You choose between desires do you not? The choice is base on what you want at the moment and thus, choose for. How do you see coercion?

If we make choices according to the influence of external power, it's coercion. I'm just 'evaluating' what you said:)

The permissive will is an Arminian view, one that Calvin rejected outright!

You are dead wrong, dec. Calvin rejected the ARMINIAN notion of permissive will which has permissive will at the forefront. Only a hyper-Calvinist (who is really not a Calvinist at all) would deny God's permissive will. Your statement shows how little you really know about Calvinism and how enslaved you are to your preconceived notions.

So, in effect, when you sin, you are doing your own will, and God is not controlling you, but allowing you to sin. Sounds like free will to me! LOL!

Let me ask you something, dec. Do you believe God is actively involved in restraining evil in the world, or do you believe it runs rampant and God either does not have or does not use a means of trumping it? I'd like you to consider Pharaoh for a moment. What was God's means of hardening his heart? Clearly there was a permissive action on God's behalf. Could not God have struck Pharoah dead before he persecuted and tormented His people? But God was more than a passive bystander in the showdown with Moses wasn't He? So what was the means of hardening? Did God place sinful desire in Pharaoh's heart? Did He compel him to his resistence? Or did He simply remove the restraints already in place...lengthen the leash so to speak? Who is the author of sin in this case? Clearly it is still Pharaoh and not God. And yet God deliberately turns him over to this sin...in fact he was "raised up for this very purpose."

Round and round we go and you still cannot tell me what specifically leads a person to make the irrational choice to reject Christ. What made you make the rational choice, Ed? Were you more intelligent than someone else? Were you more righteous? Or was more revealed to you than someone else? Did God's will to elect you proceed according to your will?

To borrow a quote from Sproul, your protests against God's sovereign and unconditional election echo the "protest[s] of fallen man complaining that God is not gracious enough." "The outcry is based on a superficial understanding of the matter."

No, what the Scripture is clear on is that God does want all men saved, that is why Calvinism has to run to a secret will to get out the contradictions in their own philiosphical construction.

DOESN’T THE BIBLE SAY THAT GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH?

The Apostle Peter clearly states that God is not willing that any should perish.

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

How can we square this verse with predestination? If it is not the will of God to elect everyone unto salvation, how can the Bible then say that God is not willing that any should perish?

In the first place we must understand that the Bible speaks of the will of God in more than one way. For example, the Bible speaks of what we call God’s sovereign efficacious will. The sovereign will of God is that will by which God brings things to pass with absolute certainty. Nothing can resist the will of God in this sense. By his sovereign will he created the world. The light could not have refused to shine.

The second way in which the Bible speaks of the will of God is with respect to what we call his preceptive will. God’s preceptive will refers to his commands, his laws. It is God’s will that we do the things he mandates. We are capable of disobeying this will. We do in fact break his commandments. We cannot do it with impunity. We do it without his permission or sanction. Yet we do it. We sin.

A third way the Bible speaks of the will of God has reference to God’s disposition, to what is pleasing to him. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked. There is a sense in which the punishment of the wicked does not bring joy to God. He chooses to do it because it is good to punish evil. He delights in the righteousness of his judgment but is “sad” that such righteous judgment must be carried out. It is something like a judge sitting on a bench and sentencing his own son to prison.

Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, “God is not willing that any should perish,” and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would then be a proof text not for Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminians.

Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be more perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing than perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.

The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may simply be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.

Though the third definition is a possible and attractive one to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any should perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us. Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text would demand the first definition and would be one more strong passage in favor of predestination.

In two different ways the text may easily be harmonized with predestination. In no way does it support Arminianism. Its only other possible meaning would be universalism, which would then bring it into conflict with everything else the Bible says against universalism.

Sproul, R. (. C. (1986). Chosen by God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

It might that it is the Calvinists who do not understand the Arminian position on the permissive will

The Calvinists think because the Arminians hold that man is being allowed to act, that the act is not in fact decreed in history.

As already noted, Wesley did believe in the fact that God does control history.

Now, let us see how Calvin handles it

(This is from Genesis 45)

Good men, who fear to expose the justice of God to the calumnies of the impious, resort to this distinction, that God wills some things, but permits others to be done. As if, truly, any degree of liberty of action, were he to cease from governing, would be left to men.

Arminians (Arminus and Wesley) did not hold to this, but that God knew what man would do willingly and allowed it, such as in the case of your sins, which you admitted were from a 'permissive will'

If he had only permitted Joseph to be carried into Egypt, he had not ordained him to be the minister of deliverance to his father Jacob and his sons; which he is now expressly declared to have done. Away, then, with that vain figment, that, by the permission of God only, (emphasis added) and not by his counsel or will, those evils are committed which he afterwards turns to a good account. I speak of evils with respect to men, who propose nothing else to themselves but to act perversely. And as the vice dwells in them, so ought the whole blame also to be laid upon them. But God works wonderfully through their means, in order that, from their impurity, he may bring forth his perfect righteousness.

This is what the Arminians would agree to, God letting man act according to his own nature, freely and still working it for God's own ends (e.g.Phraroah)

This method of acting is secret, and far above our understanding.

Agreed, so why do Calvinists insist they know how it does happen!

Therefore it is not wonderful that the licentiousness of our flesh should rise against it. But so much the more diligently must we be on our guard, that we do not attempt to reduce this lofty standard to the measure of our own littleness. Let this sentiment remain fixed with us, that while the lust of men exults, and intemperately hurries them hither and thither, God is the ruler, and, by his secret rein, directs their motions whithersoever he pleases.

Here we see who is really performing the action, God Himself, who is 'directing the reigns'

At the same time, however, it must also be maintained, that God acts so far distinctly from them, that no vice can attach itself to his providence, and that his decrees have no affinity with the crimes of men.

Calvin knows that there is a problem with what he just said so he attempts to get God 'off the hook' by making the 'control' distant.

It doesn't how many decisions are made between the act if they are all being willed by God Himself.

Thus, in the case of our own sins, you stated a 'permissive will' was the issue.

Thus, God is 'allowing' you to sin against His own will.

Or, are you saying that God really wants you sin.

That is how Calvin saw the control of man, that God had to directly will each act, since God really wanted each act to happen for His own glory.

Your use of a 'permissive will' is meaningless if in fact, it is God who is willing that you sin and you are in fact, doing His will when you do so.

Finally, the statement that I do not understand Calvinism is one commonly made against those who boil it down to its essential element, God is the author of sin and death, the very thing that He Himself condemns.

The differences between 'Hyper' and 'moderate' do not affect that essential element.

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.