Free Will & Determinism Debate

The following is a discussion I had with Ben and Richard at http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.com/ in the comments section on Ben's article on "The incompatibiility of Compatibilism" that I wish to record here for all who might be interested. If the discussion continues, I will update this entry.

Here is my first comment and the comments that followed from Ben and Richard.

I am a Hard Determinist. I am satisfied that it is the teaching of the bible. I would be happy to change my mind if those who deny it could simply explain a hundred scriptures that teach it. I also do not like a world with free will. If free will got us into this mess, why do we value it so highly? Besides, if having free will, as it is generally defined, means I must choose without coercive force, or the power of contrary choice, then we will never be secure in heaven.

If free will is so valuable, why do we, as Christians, pray for the Spirit of God to "control" us?

I will give one example of the passages which prove determinism for any to "chew on."

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." (Rev. 17: 16, 17 KJV)

What does "put in their hearts" mean? Was this that was put in their heart a good or a bad thing?

Good discussion!

God bless

Stephen
July 2, 2008 8:27 PM

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/ said...

Hey Stephen,

Rev 17:17 reminds me of 2nd Chronicles 18:18-22: Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right and on His left. The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab king of Israel to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ He said, ‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and prevail also. Go and do so.’ Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets, for the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you.”

I tend to answer the question of how God puts it into their heart, within this perspective. Thoughts?

July 2, 2008 8:44 PM

Yes, I have thoughts on both passages. However, I don't think they need any explaining. Scriptures like these are much harder for us to "accept" than they are to "understand" or "figure out."

I think this issue is relative to the Euthyphro dilemma and the Divine Command theory. Don't you think?

I also see the end of Arminian free willism is Process Theology which denies omnipotence and omniscience.

I look forward to hearing you comment on both passages.

Those are only two of "hundreds" of verses similar to them.

God bless

Stephen
July 2, 2008 9:12 PM

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/ said...

Hey Stephen,

In terms of "how" God does the things outlined at Rev 17 and Chronicles, it may be that God takes a passive approach. In the case of Job, Satan is the one who carried out his own will against God and Job. Most Compatibilists agree that God's hardening may merely be the withdrawl of grace. Compatibilists, in these cases, site the positive and negative decrees of God.

In my opinion, I'm not sold on the idea that God is actively working sin in the lives of those described at Rev 17, but rather is simply giving them over to the will of Satan.

July 2, 2008 10:29 PM

Dear EC:

You wrote:

"I tend to answer the question of how God puts it into their heart, within this perspective." "In terms of "how" God does the things outlined at Rev 17 and Chronicles, it may be that God takes a passive approach. In the case of Job, Satan is the one who carried out his own will against God and Job. Most Compatibilists agree that God's hardening may merely be the withdrawl of grace. Compatibilists, in these cases, site the positive and negative decrees of God.

"What real difference does it make "how" God does it? In either case, you admit God is the one who does the work. Does it make a difference "how" I kill a man, whether with a gun or knife? Is it not murder either way?

Those who say God causes things "passively" still have God causing it. If I know that my inaction will cause a certain thing, is my inaction not a cause in the same way action is a cause?

How would our courts rule in such cases? What about product liability laws? (Are we not God's product?)The inaction of the good Samaritan was condemned and could have been considered a "cause" of the death of the wounded man.

I don't see how one can read that God "put into the heart" and see God doing something passively.

So, you have not really dealt with the issue. You still have God's inaction causing evil.

God bless

Stephen
July 3, 2008 6:41 AM

kangaroodort said...

If free will got us into this mess, why do we value it so highly?

If determinism is true then God got us into this mess. Why then should we value Him so highly?

Arminians do not value free will for the sake of free will. We believe that God is not, and cannot be, the author of sin. We also believe that the Bible plainly teaches that salvation is conditional which pre-supposes free will. There are also specific passages of Scripture that seem to force the issue of free will (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:13).

Free will is also valued because it makes for genuine relationships. It gives us an opportunity to exercise true love, and with that comes the ability to mess things up as well.

Besides, if having free will, as it is generally defined, means I must choose without coercive force, or the power of contrary choice, then we will never be secure in heaven.

Not necessarily. If God makes us incorruptible it is in response to our free will decision on earth. the Believer desires to be free from sin and conformed to the image of Christ. When God does that for us in Heaven, He is perfectly fulfilling our will. There is more that could be said about that but I don't want to make this too long.

What does "put in their hearts" mean? Was this that was put in their heart a good or a bad thing?

It means that God powerfully influenced them. That does not mean that they had to yield to that influence. However, they did in fact yield to that influence, and therefore we can say that God's influence was the reason.

It should be noted that God did not cause them to sin. There kingdoms and intentions were already evil. God only influenced them to yield their kingdoms to the Beast. By their wickedness they were already in allegiance with Satan and the Beast, God only influenced them to re-direct that allegiance in a more material way. So God did not cause their sin but influenced them to change the direction of their sin.

The NASB translates it this way:

"For God has put it into their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast..." (emphasis mine)

I would suggest that you are reading far more into this passage than is intended.

Scriptures like these are much harder for us to "accept" than they are to "understand" or "figure out."

It is impossible to accept that God is the author of sin because it contradicts His holiness as revealed in the Bible (James 1:13- note that according to hard-determinism God actually does worse then tempt us since temptaion can at least be resisted).

I also see the end of Arminian free willism is Process Theology which denies omnipotence and omniscience.

It does not necessarily lead to those things (since Arminians affirm omnipotence and omniscience). However, I would argue that the "end" of determinism is panentheism and makes God the author of sin. Why then don't you find the end of determinism as disturbing as what you perceive to be the "end" of Arminianism?

The inaction of the good Samaritan was condemned and could have been considered a "cause" of the death of the wounded man.

I don't see how one can read that God "put into the heart" and see God doing something passively.

So, you have not really dealt with the issue. You still have God's inaction causing evil.

First of all, if God permits evil it is not the same as causing it. God is not obligated to intervene every time man wants to do something evil. And yet God will eventually make everything right. The parable of the good Samaritan is big trouble for your Calvinism. In Calvinism God does exactly what Jesus condemns in the parable. He passes over the majority of His creation without giving them any way out of their situation, and in your hard-determinism- a situation that God Himself caused.

In Arminian theology God is not like those who passed by and refused to help because God is active. He desires all to be saved and gave His Son to bring reconciliation to all sinners. God provided help. He took the initiative. He works in our hearts to bring us to faith and repentance so that we can be united to Him in Christ. He wants to bind our wounds and bring healing.

If we persistently resist His grace and refuse His help He is under no obligation to continue to work in us. He has the divine right to leave us alone and remove His grace from us (Rom. 1:20-32).

Therefore, God is not responsible for our sins, nor is He passive in the same way as those in the parable. God gives us what we want and deserve if we continue to reject Him and spurn His grace. God could leave us all in our sinful and rebellious state and be perfectly just in doing so. Instead, He reaches out. If we reject Him then we are to blame, and not Him. But if God pre-determined our sin and rejection, then He alone is to blame, which is where your theology inevitably leads.

Again, God could intervene and prevent sin and evil at every turn, but He has chosen to deal with evil and suffering differently. Apparently, God values us a persons made in His image and values a relationship with us that allows for the possibility of sin and suffering.

This in no way makes God responsible for our decisions to sin and reject Him. Nor does it make Him responsible for our sin because He does not stop us at every turn. Nor does it mean that God isn't doing anything about sin and suffering. He did more than we deserve in the cross and God will eventually judge the earth in perfect justice.

Not sure that I will be able to continue this discussion but I want to give you some thoughts from an Arminian perspective.

God Bless,

Ben
July 3, 2008 11:15 AM


Dear Ben:

If free will got us into this mess, why do we value it so highly?

If determinism is true then God got us into this mess. Why then should we value Him so highly?

Arminians do not value free will for the sake of free will. We believe that God is not, and cannot be, the author of sin. We also believe that the Bible plainly teaches that salvation is conditional which pre-supposes free will. There are also specific passages of Scripture that seem to force the issue of free will (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:13).

Free will is also valued because it makes for genuine relationships. It gives us an opportunity to exercise true love, and with that comes the ability to mess things up as well.

I did not affirm that free will got us into this mess. I was only showing that free will theology offers no real or lasting security, no guarantee of it. If free will caused all the evil in the world, then how could it be a good thing? If this is the result of free will, and we still have free will in heaven, we may then fall from heaven as Satan or Adam. Yours is an indeterminate system, both now and forever.

As far as salvation being “conditional,” that would depend on what you mean by saying that. Further, if you interpret it in the typical Arminian fashion, you will have “conditional” equal “indeterminate” and “uncertain.” Something can be said to be conditional in the context of certainty and unconditionality.

The passage you cited in I Cor. 10:13 says nothing about the will of man being “free” and “independent.” Both scripture and modern science demonstrate that the idea of absolute free choice is a myth, as Luther said. Choices are caused, not uncaused. If there were no causes to choice, then we could not predict choice. But, we can predict choice, so choices have determining causes.

Your argument how love must be freely given, meaning without anyone or anything “causing” the love, is not scriptural. We are commanded to love God. We are not commanded to love every woman as our spouse, however. Do you say we are commanded to love God or not? If we are commanded to love God, there is no choice, is there?

Besides, if having free will, as it is generally defined, means I must choose without coercive force, or the power of contrary choice, then we will never be secure in heaven.

Not necessarily. If God makes us incorruptible it is in response to our free will decision on earth. the Believer desires to be free from sin and conformed to the image of Christ. When God does that for us in Heaven, He is perfectly fulfilling our will. There is more that could be said about that but I don't want to make this too long.

So, we freely choose to lose free will? How then can we love God in heaven, by your definition of love? Why would we choose to not have free will if it is necessary for loving God, as you say? If it is so valuable? Let me ask you this. Suppose you have a son who is addicted to heroin, and has lost his will power to un-addict himself, but you have the power to change his will, and make him willing and able. Would you, out of love for your son, nor force your good will on his evil will?

What does "put in their hearts" mean? Was this that was put in their heart a good or a bad thing?

It means that God powerfully influenced them. That does not mean that they had to yield to that influence. However, they did in fact yield to that influence, and therefore we can say that God's influence was the reason.

It should be noted that God did not cause them to sin. There kingdoms and intentions were already evil. God only influenced them to yield their kingdoms to the Beast. By their wickedness they were already in allegiance with Satan and the Beast, God only influenced them to re-direct that allegiance in a more material way. So God did not cause their sin but influenced them to change the direction of their sin.

The NASB translates it this way:

"For God has put it into their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast..." (emphasis mine)I would suggest that you are reading far more into this passage than is intended.

But, what does “powerfully influence” mean? Can you tell when “influence” becomes “force” and coercion? Does God exert the same degree of “influence” on all? If so, why is one positively affected by that influence, and another is not?

Influenced them to do what? Was it not to do an evil thing? Do you believe he was influencing them to a good thing? Is this text not saying that the “giving” of the kingdom to the beast, by the ten kings, is because God put it in their hearts to do so? I do not think I am reading to much into the passage. The unbiased person knows what the text is saying. Again, what it says is “hard” to “accept,” but not hard to understand. Scriptures like these are much harder for us to "accept" than they are to "understand" or "figure out."

It is impossible to accept that God is the author of sin because it contradicts His holiness as revealed in the Bible (James 1:13- note that according to hard-determinism God actually does worse then tempt us since temptaion can at least be resisted).

God is the “cause” of “all things,” as the scriptures say in numerous places. If by “author” you means cause, then yes, God is the cause of sin. Many scriptures teach this. I also see the end of Arminian free willism is Process Theology which denies omnipotence and omniscience.

It does not necessarily lead to those things (since Arminians affirm omnipotence and omniscience). However, I would argue that the "end" of determinism is panentheism and makes God the author of sin. Why then don't you find the end of determinism as disturbing as what you perceive to be the "end" of Arminianism?

Calvinism does make God the cause of all things, for the scriptures say he is. I do not know of any Calvinists who have become pantheists, but I know lots of Arminians who have become believers in “open theism.”

The inaction of the good Samaritan was condemned and could have been considered a "cause" of the death of the wounded man.

I don't see how one can read that God "put into the heart" and see God doing something passively.

So, you have not really dealt with the issue. You still have God's inaction causing evil.

First of all, if God permits evil it is not the same as causing it. God is not obligated to intervene every time man wants to do something evil. And yet God will eventually make everything right.

First, you are wrong about permission not being a cause. Where did you get that idea? Why is it that many lawyers argue differently everyday? Giving permission, especially when that permission is necessary for doing anything, is a cause. Attorneys use the “but for” argument along this line, dealing with causality in its many forms. “But for” the action of A, the action of B would not have occurred. “But for” God not withholding his permission, he caused, or was a cause, of the action. Why does God condemn men for permitting evil if it is not a sin to permit it? Do you mean that God is obligated sometimes to “intervene” and stop evil? When is he obligated then, and when is he not? Besides, did not God keep Abimelech from committing sin in regards to Sarah? If God can intervene in stopping sin once, would not one argue that he is liable for not stopping others, or all?

The parable of the good Samaritan is big trouble for your Calvinism. In Calvinism God does exactly what Jesus condemns in the parable. He passes over the majority of His creation without giving them any way out of their situation, and in your hard-determinism- a situation that God Himself caused.

In Arminian theology God is not like those who passed by and refused to help because God is active. He desires all to be saved and gave His Son to bring reconciliation to all sinners. God provided help. He took the initiative. He works in our hearts to bring us to faith and repentance so that we can be united to Him in Christ. He wants to bind our wounds and bring healing.

Obviously you do not see that you have the same problem that you imagine that only Calvinists have. You say God “passes over” without giving necessary aid (opportunity for salvation), in the Calvinist scheme. But, do you not believe that men can only be saved by the gospel and that those who have died without hearing the gospel are lost? Then, in your own system, God did not provide many wounded sinners with what they needed to be saved.

God Bless,

Stephen
July 3, 2008 4:24 PM

Dear Ben:

God "passed over" the fallen angels too, did he not?

Stephen
July 3, 2008 4:31 PM

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/ said...

Hey Ben and Stephen,

Thanks for the input and perspective. You both made several points worthy of commenting on, however I'd like to focus on one element of the exchange:

Stephen wrote: "Those who say God causes things 'passively' still have God causing it. If I know that my inaction will cause a certain thing, is my inaction not a cause in the same way action is a cause? How would our courts rule in such cases? What about product liability laws? (Are we not God's product?)"

I'd like to follow up on this point, and highlight something that Ben said.

First, in the past, I've used an analogy of a hit-man, in order to demonstrate the fallacy of the secondary causes defense, which you, Stephen, may agree with. For instance, if a man hires a hit-man to murder his wife, can he claim innocense on the grounds that he carried it out through a secondary cause? In reality, the Prosecution will offer to plea bargain with the hit-man, in order to levy their greatest charge against he conspirator. So I'll agree with you that the secondary causes defense is no defense at all.

However, I didn't mean to give the impression that I endorsed it, either. Ben highlighted my thoughts, being 'permission,' and I would like to offer another verse to provide perspective:

Romans 1:28: "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." God is doing something, but it's passive, or what Sproul might call a "negative" action. He is turning them over to a secondary agent, namely Satan, but God is neither endorsing nor causing their obstinance. He is permitting them to exercise their will, and removing His grace, and giving them up. So I do not believe that fits the hit-man analogy. I do not believe that this makes God the Conspirator of their sin. God is simply giving them up, in the same way that the father of the prodigal son, had given him up, against the father's will for his son, in the same way that God had given up the tribulation "666" crowd to the will of Satan, and given up Ahab to the will of Satan. Thoughts?

God bless you both,

Richard
July 3, 2008 5:44 PM

kangaroodort said...

I deleted the above comment because of a ridiculous typo...

I did not affirm that free will got us into this mess.

Here are your exact words: “If free will got us into this mess, why do we value it so highly?

I was only showing that free will theology offers no real or lasting security, no guarantee of it.

If you say so, but it seems to me that you are back-peddling.

If free will caused all the evil in the world, then how could it be a good thing?

Because genuine love could not take place without it and the most genuine Being in the world would not be satisfied with anything less. That we use a gift perversely does not mean that it is not good. Our wills were not intended for disobedience, but disobedience remained a possibility.

If I use a hammer to bash someone’s head in it does not mean that hammers are bad, and it does not mean that the person who designed and made the hammer should be held responsible for my actions. Hammers are very useful. I can use a hammer to build a church or a house for a homeless person. That is what hammers were intended for, to build. If I use it for something else it doesn’t mean that it was not intended for something good.

If this is the result of free will, and we still have free will in heaven, we may then fall from heaven as Satan or Adam. Yours is an indeterminate system, both now and forever.

No it is not as I explained before. Why can’t we surrender our will to God? In fact, that is exactly what Scripture calls on us to do. But if God controls our will then we are not really surrendering our will to him. That makes any kind of human act of sacrifice meaningless. If we pray and desire to fully surrender our will to God and be conformed to His image, and God answers that prayer by making us incorruptible in Heaven, then God has not violated our will, but given us what we wanted and answered our prayer. Our relationship with God would still be based on a free-will decision even if we are incapable of sinning in Heaven. Not that complicated really.

As far as salvation being “conditional,” that would depend on what you mean by saying that. Further, if you interpret it in the typical Arminian fashion, you will have “conditional” equal “indeterminate” and “uncertain.” Something can be said to be conditional in the context of certainty and unconditionality.

So something can be both conditional and unconditional? Feel free to explain.

The passage you cited in I Cor. 10:13 says nothing about the will of man being “free” and “independent.”

Ah, but it does. It plainly implies free-will and kills determinism. Here is the passage:

“No temptation has overtaken but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide a way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”

God provides the ability, the grace, and means by which to escape temptation. Yet many still yield to temptation. The determinist says that the one who yields to temptation does so because he must. God determined him to fall prey to temptation. If that is the case then it was not possible to endure the temptation and escape it which plainly contradicts the above passage and makes God unfaithful rather than faithful as the passage declares and defines it. Therefore, the passage demonstrates that determinism is unbiblical and that man has the power to do things that he does not actually do.

Both scripture and modern science demonstrate that the idea of absolute free choice is a myth, as Luther said.

Scripture says no such thing. It everywhere pre-supposes the existence of free-will and the above passage proves this. Modern science could never disprove free-will if free-will is found in the mind or soul which is immaterial and not subject to physical laws or to scientific observation. To say that science has proven that free choice is a myth is absurd.

Choices are caused, not uncaused.

Correct. They are caused by the free-agent with the God given power and ability to make choices.

If there were no causes to choice, then we could not predict choice. But, we can predict choice, so choices have determining causes.

I agree. See above.

Your argument how love must be freely given, meaning without anyone or anything “causing” the love, is not scriptural. We are commanded to love God. We are not commanded to love every woman as our spouse, however. Do you say we are commanded to love God or not? If we are commanded to love God, there is no choice, is there?

We are commanded to love God and yet many do not (which means we do have a choice, either to obey the command or not). But according to your determinism all would infallibly love God since He commands it and does not give us a choice, but rather determines our choices. But you believe instead, since again many do not love God, that God commands all of His creation to love Him and then irresistibly causes most of His creation to hate Him. Ridiculous.

So, we freely choose to lose free will? How then can we love God in heaven, by your definition of love? Why would we choose to not have free will if it is necessary for loving God, as you say? If it is so valuable? Let me ask you this. Suppose you have a son who is addicted to heroin, and has lost his will power to un-addict himself, but you have the power to change his will, and make him willing and able. Would you, out of love for your son, nor force your good will on his evil will?

This analogy does not fit God’s interactions with His creation since it is not related to two people in a relationship loving each other. It is about making someone overcome addiction and not about making someone love you. Those who are in Heaven are there because they chose to love God and willingly surrendered their wills to Him, which is itself an act of love. So they yield something that is “valuable” to God, an act of surrender and sacrifice that your theology makes impossible.

But, what does “powerfully influence” mean? Can you tell when “influence” becomes “force” and coercion?

When it is irresistible.

Does God exert the same degree of “influence” on all? If so, why is one positively affected by that influence, and another is not?

Because of their God given ability to yield to or resist that influence (free-will). You are begging the question of determinism.

Influenced them to do what? Was it not to do an evil thing? Do you believe he was influencing them to a good thing? Is this text not saying that the “giving” of the kingdom to the beast, by the ten kings, is because God put it in their hearts to do so?

They could either keep their power or give it away. God influenced them to give it away.

Were they giving it to something evil?

Yes, but they were already in allegiance with the beast and Satan in their hearts so God did not cause that allegiance. God may have influenced them (gave them the idea, i.e. “put it in their hearts”) to see that their allegiance (which God did not cause) was best served by giving their kingdoms to the beast. That is far from saying that God caused them to sin.

I do not think I am reading too much into the passage. The unbiased person knows what the text is saying. Again, what it says is “hard” to “accept,” but not hard to understand.

And I think the unbiased person would never come way from reading Scripture with the idea that God causes sin, especially in light of James 1:13, which you have so far ignored.

Scriptures like these are much harder for us to "accept" than they are to "understand" or "figure out."

And I wonder why you do not “accept” those passages which plainly state that God died for all, desires to save all, loves the world, etc? Don’t you try to “figure out” a way to make them conform to your Calvinism? So it is not as simple as you want to make it. The text does not say that God caused sin, and I have given you some alternative ways to understand the passage which do not do violence to the text.

God is the “cause” of “all things,” as the scriptures say in numerous places. If by “author” you means cause, then yes, God is the cause of sin. Many scriptures teach this.

Show me a Scripture that says that God causes sin. Again, James 1:13 makes such a thing impossible.

Calvinism does make God the cause of all things, for the scriptures say he is. I do not know of any Calvinists who have become pantheists, but I know lots of Arminians who have become believers in “open theism.”

Actually, I said that hard-determinism leads to panentheism (not pantheism). In your view God meticulously controls everything in such a way that their really cannot be any true personality besides His own, for even the personality of His creatures is dependent on Him as He controls every thought and action that they make. So really there is nothing but God out there and we are all just various expressions of God (which must also include our sinful disobedience, i.e. sin is an expression of God’s personality- a blasphemous thought!).

First, you are wrong about permission not being a cause. Where did you get that idea? Why is it that many lawyers argue differently everyday? Giving permission, especially when that permission is necessary for doing anything, is a cause. Attorneys use the “but for” argument along this line, dealing with causality in its many forms. “But for” the action of A, the action of B would not have occurred. “But for” God not withholding his permission, he caused, or was a cause, of the action. Why does God condemn men for permitting evil if it is not a sin to permit it?

“But for” the fact that Fred gave John that hammer to build his dog house, John couldn’t have used that hammer to break into the Sports Store where he stole the gun that he used to kill his wife. Therefore, Fred is responsible for this heinous act. Ha!

Do you mean that God is obligated sometimes to “intervene” and stop evil? When is he obligated then, and when is he not?

God is obligated to judge and punish evil because of His justice and holiness. He is not obligated to stop us from committing evil nor is he responsible for that evil because He permits it.

Besides, did not God keep Abimelech from committing sin in regards to Sarah?

Yes He did, because Abimelech was acting in ignorance because he had been deceived to believe that Sarah was not married. Therefore, God protected him from sinning against Sarah and Abraham by sleeping with her.

Was God obligated to do so?

No. He did it as an act of grace because Abimelech was acting in ignorance of the reality of the situation. His intentions were not evil. He was trying to do things properly and God honored that. That is hardly analogous to God being bound to step in and prevent someone bent on evil to commit sin, nor does it in any way demonstrate that God is responsible for the sinful choices we make because He does not stop us from making those choices.

If God can intervene in stopping sin once, would not one argue that he is liable for not stopping others, or all?

This simply does not follow.

Obviously you do not see that you have the same problem that you imagine that only Calvinists have. You say God “passes over” without giving necessary aid (opportunity for salvation), in the Calvinist scheme. But, do you not believe that men can only be saved by the gospel and that those who have died without hearing the gospel are lost? Then, in your own system, God did not provide many wounded sinners with what they needed to be saved.

Perhaps he did reach out to them. I don’t know how God may work in the hearts of those who never hear the gospel and neither do you. Many have come to know the Lord through visions, etc. It may be that God acts in accordance with how people who never hear the gospel respond to His natural revelation. I have heard some amazing stories along those lines. It may be that if they respond to the grace given that God will work things out so that they will eventually hear the gospel. Paul says that men are “without excuse” because God reveals Himself to them through creation. However, if what you believe is true then there is no reason to give reasons for why pagans are “without excuse” because such things form no basis for responsibility anyway. And don’t you think it strange that God decided to plant His elect primarily in America, etc., according to your Calvinism?

As far as fallen angels we just do not have enough Biblical information concerning their nature or the how they “fell”. It would seems foolish to me to try to build or even support ones theology based on an issue that we know almost nothing about. Anselm (I think) suggested that because angels are purely spiritual beings and have such superior knowledge, that their decisions, once made, are irrevocable. That may be true but it is just speculation since we simply do not know enough about angels to make such judgments.

July 4, 2008 10:50 AM

Kangaroodort

I did not affirm that free will got us into this mess.

Here are your exact words: “If free will got us into this mess, why do we value it so highly?"

Brother, don’t you know that “if” does not assume the statement is true, being an “if” of logic or reason. In other words, you should have read my words as meaning “if free will got us into this mess (it did not, but assuming it did), why...?” Perhaps my use of the pronoun “we” threw you off? Perhaps I should have said “you.” But, I had already announced myself as a “hard determinist” and so you should have known that I personally do not believe in free will. Also, said many things wherein I denied “free will.” I have made it plain that I do not value “free will” so highly. I was only showing that free will theology offers no real or lasting security, no guarantee of it.

If you say so, but it seems to me that you are back-peddling.

Only in your mind, Richard. Being a logical statement, rather than a statement of my own belief, I was, in fact, only attempting to show that “free will” theology offers no real security and that it is a contradiction in such theology to speak of being one day fully determined, without ability to choose evil, and yet having free will or the ability to fall. Such is an indeterminate system and can never be determinate. Besides, you seem to favor loss of free will by a free will decision, a thing, as I have said, is incongruous. You have yet to show how you will one day be fully determined to only do good and yet have free will. You have yet to show how, losing free will in heaven, as you seem to admit (assuming we once had it), makes genuine ongoing love to God possible. By your definition of love, which is not fully scriptural, a man in heaven who no longer has free will is no longer loving God freely.

If free will caused all the evil in the world, then how could it be a good thing?

Because genuine love could not take place without it and the most genuine Being in the world would not be satisfied with anything less. That we use a gift perversely does not mean that it is not good. Our wills were not intended for disobedience, but disobedience remained a possibility. If I use a hammer to bash someone’’s head in it does not mean that hammers are bad, and it does not mean that the person who designed and made the hammer should be held responsible for my actions. Hammers are very useful. I can use a hammer to build a church or a house for a homeless person. That is what hammers were intended for, to build. If I use it for something else it doesn’’t mean that it was not intended for something good.

If genuine love cannot exist without free will, and you admit that we lose free will in heaven (the loss of which makes sin impossible), then love to God is not genuine when in heaven. You cannot see your contradiction on love to God. You want to make it strictly analogous to a man loving a wife. But, as I have shown, to restrict the bible presentation to that example alone is not correct and leads to the type of thinking that you and other Arminians display. You admit that I have no right to command a woman to love me. You affirm that I have no right to demand or command such love from her, right? Now, is this how you restrict the nature of salvation? Is it only something we have the option to do or not, as in a choice to marry a woman? Surely you are not even seeing the point!

In your restricted view, God cannot demand love nor condemn a man for not loving him, no more than I can condemn a woman for not loving me when I want her to!

Your knowledge of “causality” is little. Don’t you know there are different kinds of causes and that there may be varied causes to an effect, or what is called “contributing causes”? Do you or do you not believe that God is the “first cause of all things”? Do you believe he knows everything in advance? Your hammer analogy falls in this respect.

First, the hammer is a “cause,” being a “material” cause, as Aristotle would say. There are, as he pointed out, material causes, efficient causes, formal causes, final causes, etc. So we also talk of secondary causes, or instrumental causes. You really should know all this if you are trying to swim out this deep. Is it your position that God is no “cause” at all, in any sense, then?

True, the hammer could not be “blamed” or “faulted” in a legal sense, as humans are, but if we use the term “cause” in the sense of “responsible,” we use it in regard to both things human and non-human. So too with the words blame and fault, we use it in regards to things. For instance, “a faulty engine was to blame (at fault, or responsible) for the wreck.” If I make a hammer, and I know in advance that the hammer will kill a certain person, and I nevertheless make that hammer, and give it to the person, am I, in any sense, a “cause”? You know our legal system would say I was at fault, responsible, or to blame, or the legal cause.

If this is the result of free will, and we still have free will in heaven, we may then fall from heaven as Satan or Adam. Yours is an indeterminate system, both now and forever.

No it is not as I explained before. Why can’t we surrender our will to God? In fact, that is exactly what Scripture calls on us to do. But if God controls our will then we are not really surrendering our will to him. That makes any kind of human act of sacrifice meaningless. If we pray and desire to fully surrender our will to God and be conformed to His image, and God answers that prayer by making us incorruptible in Heaven, then God has not violated our will, but given us what we wanted and answered our prayer. Our relationship with God would still be based on a free-will decision even if we are incapable of sinning in Heaven. Not that complicated really.

I have already addressed this in my above remarks.

As far as salvation being “conditional,” that would depend on what you mean by saying that. Further, if you interpret it in the typical Arminian fashion, you will have “conditional” equal “indeterminate” and “uncertain.” Something can be said to be conditional in the context of certainty and unconditionality.

So something can be both conditional and unconditional? Feel free to explain.

Here is an example. I push over domino # 1, and it pushes over domino # 2, etc. Now, did you know that once I push over the first domino, that the others will all fall, unconditionally? But, do you not know that I can appropriately say, nonetheless, - “domino # 3's falling over is conditioned upon domino # 2 falling over”? Besides, see Acts 2: 2: 23, 24 : 4: 35

The passage you cited in I Cor. 10:13 says nothing about the will of man being “free” and “independent.”

Ah, but it does. It plainly implies free-will and kills determinism. Here is the passage:

“No temptation has overtaken but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide a way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”

God provides the ability, the grace, and means by which to escape temptation. Yet many still yield to temptation. The determinist says that the one who yields to temptation does so because he must. God determined him to fall prey to salvation. If that is the case then it was not possible to endure the temptation and escape it which plainly contradicts the above passage and makes God unfaithful rather than faithful as the passage declares and defines it. Therefore, the passage demonstrates that determinism is unbiblical and that man has the power to do things that he does not actually do.

Sure, God gives ability. Who denies that? But, he also gives the willing heart, and the readiness of mind and spirit. If a man have all three, then he will prevail in the temptation. In your system, in the end, you must credit yourself for overcoming temptation, not God. “For who made you to differ from another” as regards the use of this ability?

Both scripture and modern science demonstrate that the idea of absolute free choice is a myth, as Luther said.

Scripture says no such thing. It everywhere pre-supposes the existence of free-will and the above passage proves this. Modern science could never disprove free-will if free-will is found in the mind or soul which is immaterial and not subject to physical laws or to scientific observation. To say that science has proven that free choice is a myth is absurd.

Brother, you are just ignorant of modern behavioral sciences which are mostly deterministic in the matter of human choice and behavior. In fact, many criminals are found not guilty because the attorneys in their defense proved that sociological, psychological, or environmental factors brought about the choice and behavior. I guess you set yourselves against them all. I think you should look up articles on “free will” as it is discussed by psychologists.

Choices are caused, not uncaused.

Correct. They are caused by the free-agent with the God given power and ability to make choices.

But here you contradict what you said above! If there are causes to choice, then choice is not “free” by common Arminian and Libertarian definitions.

If there were no causes to choice, then we could not predict choice. But, we can predict choice, so choices have determining causes.

I agree. See above.

But, again you contradict yourself.

Your argument how love must be freely given, meaning without anyone or anything “causing” the love, is not scriptural. We are commanded to love God. We are not commanded to love every woman as our spouse, however. Do you say we are commanded to love God or not? If we are commanded to love God, there is no choice, is there?

We are commanded to love God and yet many do not (which means we do have a choice, either to obey the command or not). But according to your determinism all would infallibly love God since He commands it and does not give us a choice, but rather determines our choices. But you believe instead, since again many do not love God, that God commands all of His creation to love Him and then irresistibly causes most of His creation to hate Him. Ridiculous.

Yes, and in your “paradigm” on love for God and salvation, God does not command us to love us for you have made it strictly equivalent to a man choosing to love a wife. You seem to put man on the level of God and have him seeking a wife after the manner of the Pagans. In such a love relationship, both come to each other as “equals,” do they not? In your paradigm you have yourself to thank for your loving God. Who created the love you have for God? It must be either God or yourself, correct? But, you think that if God create or cause us to love him, then the love is of no use. You think self created love is what God desires more than any love he would cause or create!So, we freely choose to lose free will? How then can we love God in heaven, by your definition of love? Why would we choose to not have free will if it is necessary for loving God, as you say? If it is so valuable? Let me ask you this. Suppose you have a son who is addicted to heroin, and has lost his will power to un-addict himself, but you have the power to change his will, and make him willing and able. Would you, out of love for your son, nor force your good will on his evil will?

This analogy does not fit God’s interactions with His creation since it is not related to two people in a relationship loving each other. It is about making someone overcome addiction and not about making someone love you. Those who are in Heaven are there because they chose to love God and willingly surrendered their wills to Him, which is itself an act of love. So they yield something that is “valuable” to God, an act of surrender and sacrifice that your theology makes impossible.

But, the scriptures do put us in the position, not only of a would be “suitor,” but of a man needing to be rescued! All men are God’s children by virtue of natural creation, yes? But, these children have become wholly addicted to sin and lost their free will! But, you still love them! And, you have the power to change their wills! To make them not want heroin again! I know you get the point!

But, what does “powerfully influence” mean? Can you tell when “influence” becomes “force” and coercion?

When it is irresistible.

So, you do not believe in “falling in love”? You do not believe that love can be irresistible? Read your bible!

Does God exert the same degree of “influence” on all? If so, why is one positively affected by that influence, and another is not?

Because of their God given ability to yield to or resist that influence (free-will). You are begging the question of determinism.

So, clearly, you would ascribe the ultimate difference to something in the persons themselves. So, if we ask you, Richard, “who made you differ” in this matter of resisting or not resisting his influence on you? Not God! It was Richard who made himself different!

Influenced them to do what? Was it not to do an evil thing? Do you believe he was influencing them to a good thing? Is this text not saying that the “giving” of the kingdom to the beast, by the ten kings, is because God put it in their hearts to do so?

They could either keep their power or give it away. God influenced them to give it away.

Were they giving it to something evil?

Yes, but they were already in allegiance with the beast and Satan in their hearts so God did not cause that allegiance. God may have influenced them (gave them the idea, i.e. “put it in their hearts”) to see that their allegiance (which God did not cause) was best served by giving their kingdoms to the beast. That is far from saying that God caused them to sin.

Brother, if you will look at all the other places in the bible where this and similar language is used - “put it in their hearts,” then I think you could talk about this more intelligently. If I put into the heart of my son to commit murder, no court in the land would hold me wholly blameless, or not in any way a “cause” or “responsible,” and you know that! You just refuse to believe in a God that does what he clearly does in the passage cited. Why don’t you quit twisting the verse and trying to say “God had nothing to do with it”? This is really what you are trying to say! But, anyone reading the text can see that God had something to do with bringing about their evil deed, and therefore, was in some sense, a cause of it. But, you do not like to think of God causing such things and so you twist the passage and end up saying “God had nothing to do with it”! For, you know, that if he did have something to do with it, then he had some level of causation or responsibility for it.I do not think I am reading to much into the passage. The unbiased person knows what the text is saying. Again, what it says is “hard” to “accept,” but not hard to understand.

And I think the unbiased person would never come way from reading Scripture with the idea that God causes sin, especially in light of James 1:13, which you have so far ignored.

Brother, James 1: 13 is what you have brought up because your argument is weak on the passage in Revelation 17. Can we settle what is being said and “implied” in that passage first? Can we first settle the question as to whether God “causes” all things?

Scriptures like these are much harder for us to "accept" than they are to "understand" or "figure out."

And I wonder why you do not “accept” those passages which plainly state that God died for all, desires to save all, loves the world, etc? Don’’t you try to “figure out” a way to make them conform to your Calvinism? So it is not as simple as you want to make it. The text does not say that God caused sin, and I have given you some alternative ways to understand the passage which do not do violence to the text.

Why are you bringing up new issues when it is taking so long to discuss the few points we have engaged to discuss? I don’t have time for all this and so would like for us to keep to the topics already introduced before bringing up new ones.

God is the “cause” of “all things,” as the scriptures say in numerous places. If by “author” you means cause, then yes, God is the cause of sin. Many scriptures teach this.

Show me a Scripture that says that God causes sin. Again, James 1:13 makes such a thing impossible.

I will give you just a few. Romans 11: 36; I Cor. 8: 6: Colossians 1: 16-18.

No, James 1: 13 does not make that impossible. You are not correctly understanding that passage if you think it denies God being the first cause of all things, and the cause of all other causes. Calvinism does make God the cause of all things, for the scriptures say he is. I do not know of any Calvinists who have become pantheists, but I know lots of Arminians who have become believers in “open theism.”

Actually, I said that hard-determinism leads to panentheism (not pantheism). In your view God meticulously controls everything in such a way that their really cannot be any true personality besides His own, for even the personality of His creatures is dependent on Him as He controls every thought and action that they make. So really there is nothing but God out there and we are all just various expressions of God (which must also include our sinful disobedience, i.e. sin is an expression of God’’s personality- a blasphemous thought!).

Sorry about the mistake on the term. If God create a personality, then it cannot be a personality? What kind of logic is that? Or, are you saying that God does not create personality? Not even the personality of Christ? Who created yours then? Yourself? Somebody else? The bible teaches that God does control every action, from the bird falling to the ground, to the number of hairs on a man’s head. That is intense or minute control or governorship!

First, you are wrong about permission not being a cause. Where did you get that idea? Why is it that many lawyers argue differently everyday? Giving permission, especially when that permission is necessary for doing anything, is a cause. Attorneys use the “but for” argument along this line, dealing with causality in its many forms. “But for” the action of A, the action of B would not have occurred. “But for” God not withholding his permission, he caused, or was a cause, of the action. Why does God condemn men for permitting evil if it is not a sin to permit it?

“But for” the fact that Fred gave John that hammer to build his dog house, John couldn’t have used that hammer to break into the Sports Store where he stole the gun that he used to kill his wife. Therefore, Fred is responsible for this heinous act. Ha!

That is true! You are simply thinking that “legal” cause is the only kind of cause there is! Are you denying that the hammer was not a material cause? It is valid to say, for instance, “but for” God creating Richard with free will, he would be happy in Eden now”! Do you deny this is valid?

Do you mean that God is obligated sometimes to “intervene” and stop evil? When is he obligated then, and when is he not?

God is obligated to judge and punish evil because of His justice and holiness. He is not obligated to stop us from committing evil nor is he responsible for that evil because He permits it.

But, any lawyer, if he could put God on trial, would argue thusly, would he not?

Lawyer to the judge - “your honor, God kept Abimelech from sinning. He thus has the power to keep men from sinning. My client has sinned and great harm has come to him. He admits he did wrong, but your honor, God could have done for my client what he did for Abimelech.”

So, Richard, how would you respond? Suppose you put your name up there instead of “God.” In other words, “Richard could have kept my client from doing this evil”? You see, the difference between you and me is simply this. You try to do the impossible, by scripture and reason, to exonerate God of all causality in evil, but I acknowledge his causation.

Besides, did not God keep Abimelech from committing sin in regards to Sarah?

Yes He did, because Abimelech was acting in ignorance because he had been deceived to believe that Sarah was not married. Therefore, God protected him from sinning against Sarah and Abraham by sleeping with her. Was God obligated to do so? No. He did it as an act of grace because Abimelech was acting in ignorance of the reality of the situation. His intentions were not evil. He was trying to do things properly and God honored that. That is hardly analogous to God being bound to step in and prevent someone bent on evil to commit sin, nor does it in any way demonstrate that God is responsible for the sinful choices we make because He does not stop us from making those choices.

It makes no difference as to my argument as to whether Abimelech was “innocent.” God kept him from a sin. But, in your Arminian system, God can’t do this! And, if he did, you must say he must do the same for all! And, you put yourself in the position of answering the interrogatory of the lawyer (above).

I am not saying God is obligated to do so! Read carefully what I say! I believe he does so and it is perfectly consistent with my system for him to do so and remain just. You do not, however. You refuse to believe in a God who discriminates or chooses to do for one what he does not do for another.

If God can intervene in stopping sin once, would not one argue that he is liable for not stopping others, or all?

This simply does not follow.

I addressed this above.

It does follow as I have shown! Obviously you do not see that you have the same problem that you imagine that only Calvinists have. You say God “passes over” without giving necessary aid (opportunity for salvation), in the Calvinist scheme. But, do you not believe that men can only be saved by the gospel and that those who have died without hearing the gospel are lost? Then, in your own system, God did not provide many wounded sinners with what they needed to be saved.

Perhaps he did reach out to them. I don’t know how God may work in the hearts of those who never hear the gospel and neither do you. Many have come to know the Lord through visions, etc. It may be that God acts in accordance with how people who never hear the gospel respond to His natural revelation. I have heard some amazing stories along those lines. It may be that if they respond to the grace given that God will work things out so that they will eventually hear the gospel. Paul says that men are “without excuse” because God reveals Himself to them through creation. However, if what you believe is true then there is no reason to give reasons for why pagans are “without excuse” because such things form no basis for responsibility anyway. And don’t you think it strange that God decided to plant His elect primarily in America, etc., according to your Calvinism?

As far as fallen angels we just do not have enough Biblical information concerning their nature or the how they “fell”. It would seems foolish to me to try to build or even support ones theology based on an issue that we know almost nothing about. Anselm (I think) suggested that because angels are purely spiritual beings and have such superior knowledge, that their decisions, once made, are irrevocable. That may be true but it is just speculation since we simply do not know enough about angels to make such judgments.

It is unbelievable to me that Arminians preach salvation apart from the gospel and faith in Christ when they see how to believe such puts them into the position I have uncovered!

God bless,

Stephen
July 4, 2008 1:17 PM