Giving Calvinism a ... longer glance

Faith & Science Conversation
141

Aristotelianism, Judaism and traditional Christianity all believe in lfw. In modern philosophy, libertarianism is based on a belief in lfw, at least the philosophically informed variant. I believe also the Austrian school of economics considers lfw to be essential to their worldview.

Note the will doesn’t have to be unconstrained to be lfw. It is just the fundamental choice has to solely originate with the agent. for example, robots do not have lfw, since every decision can be entirely explained and predicted by the deterministic and stochastic factors that make up their operation. This does not preclude outside influence and constraint. Even God’s will is influenced by what we choose, e.g. how Moses convinces God to not wipe out the Israelites. Yet it is still God ultimately making the choice.

To your point about nature, insofar as our choices are not completely dictated by our nature, and we can influence our own nature, having a nature i.e. sin nature, does not eliminate lfw.

Since God’s nature is entirely set by Himself, not by an external entity, His lfw is not constrained in any way by His nature.

142

My church is doing fine! Great meeting with brothers and sisters in Christ away from the cares of the world. Thanks for asking! Pray you and yours is doing well!!!

If Jesus died ONLY for the Elect, as ONLY the Elect are regenerated in order to be able to believe, is it safe to say that it is NOT God’s will for all to be saved?

Is there ANY “Good News” for the non-Elect?

1 Like
143

Well, I’ll refrain from accusing you of moving the goalposts by inserting that word “solely”, but I didn’t see that in your definition earlier.

Now, I could respond further, but given your explanation, I need to clarify: I’m a Calvinist, thus a compatabilist (by definition), thus I similarly do not believe my decisions “can be entirely explained and predicted by the deterministic and stochastic factors that make up their operation.” i.e., I am in no sense a robot, or a puppet, rather, my choices are freely mine to make.

Given that perspective, can you clarify for me what exactly you object to?

1 Like
144

Well, it may be a purely semantic dispute, but I understand the term ‘compatibilism’ to refer to the notion that human free will is entirely consistent with God particularly determining every choice we make. In contrast, the libertarian free will perspective maintains that the fundamental choice made by a human is solely determined by that human.

In any choice we make, there will be a variety of factors that influence and constrain the choice, be it nature, nurture, God, the devil, economics, genes, etc. We can call the choice X and these factors Y. Determinism maintains that when you subtract X from Y, you get the null set, i.e. X-Y=0. In other words, every choice we make is fully determined by some set of factors that ultimately originate outside our will. Knowing all these factors, it is possible in principle to predict what the will chooses, either specifically or perhaps a probability distribution if some factors are stochastic.

Libertarian free will, on the other hand, states that X-Y>0. When you remove all external factors Y from X, there is still some nugget that is ultimately responsible for making X what it is. In this case, it is impossible, in principle and otherwise to fully specify any sort of probability distribution over possible choices even with full and exhaustive knowledge of Y, even if you are God Himself.

Consequently, libertarian free will is entirely incompatible with the notion that God, or anything else, fully and completely determines the choices of human agents. There is always some nugget, whether it be small or large, that human agents possess which render our choice X as more than a function of the external factors Y.

So, if by compatibilism you mean that X is fully determined by Y, and thus X-Y=0, this contradicts the libertarian free will position that maintains X-Y>0.

1 Like
145

Yes, we get to spend eternity with each other. That will be heaven.

1 Like
146

Join the club! Not that I’m any different from you, but have you read Randal Rauser’s discussion of “steelmanning” your opponent? It’s an interesting approach.
In contrast to “straw-manning” them, you argue from their perspective. It opens me to the vulnerability of having my views changed, which is rather difficult for me.

His most recent book, “Conversations With My Inner Atheist,” is an example.
https://randalrauser.com/2020/08/conversations-with-my-inner-atheist/

1 Like
147

All of these assume we are talking about some kind of mathematically “zero sum” formula, one where 35% of a choice is determined by nature, 60% by nature, and 5% by “me” (whatever “I” am without any inherent nature or nurture). Given that assumption, I would most likely agree with you. If God has chosen (100%) that Joseph‘s brothers would betray him, thenthey by definition would have made 0% of that choice.

But I simply don’t share that assumption. We Calvinists don’t believe that the result of what happens, or my choices, are in some kind of zero sum formula. If God chooses (with some 100% accuracy?) that I will do X, that this somehow removes any and all freedom from my own choice… any more than the fact that Joseph’s being sold was what God intended somehow took away the responsibility and freedom from his brothers about what they intended.

Ultimately, I am committed to this position because of the claims in the Bible that individuals (and groups) make genuine, real, purposeful, intentional, and genuinely free choices, and simultaneously, that God has directed these choices to be made, all while in a manner that does no violence to the free choices made by independent agents. So in brief, I must demur from your assumption (and I see it as no more than an assumption, respectfully) that issues of free choice and responsibility are a “zero sum” formula. The very basis of my understanding of these things is that they are indeed a “both-and” scenario.

Is it disputed that the Bible all over presents these things with “both-and” language, and doesn’t seem to share the “either-or” or “zero-sum” assumption you seem to have embraced?

“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.”

“So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD.”

“But Pharaoh hardened his heart… But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh…

“All who were appointed for eternal life believed.”

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Or perhaps my favorite that lays out the “both-and” perspective rather explicitly…

Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. But this is not what he intends, this is not what he has in mind; his purpose is to destroy, to put an end to many nations. ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he says. ‘Has not Calno fared like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad, and Samaria like Damascus? As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols, kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria—shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?’” When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.

2 Likes
148

Thus I also come full circle back to my first response in tis thread… We “compatibilist” Calvinists essentially hold a “both-and” position on humans making free, responsible choices and God’s free will. Perhaps the closest analogous doctrine is how Christians have traditionally understood the incarnation… i.e., what theologians call the “hypostatic union“, two natures in one person: Christ was 100% God, simultaneously 100% man. there was no “zero sum” game, wherein if he were 40% God he could be, at most, 60% man. the traditional formulation affirmed he was both entitely man and entirely God, “without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation”… i.e., both-and; no “zero sum” or “mutually exclusive” issues involved. Thus we do not believe the two natures are mutually exclusive; odd and mysterious, and downright incomprehensible as it may at first appear to our minds.

I emphasized to @Mervin_Bitikofer earlier that historic Calvinism embraces both predestination and free will because I do think it far too common a misconception. People do think (or assume?) predestination and free to be mutually exclusive, and thus seem to assume that if we Calvinists affirm belief in predestination, we must therefore be denying real free choice.

Similarly, i cannot count how many times, in friendly debates or discussions, some have tried to refute my Calvinistic beliefs by pointing to some Scripture that clearly affirms free, individual choice. (e.g., “choose for this day whom you shall serve,” How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”, “you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.”, etc.) Similarly, just google a list of prooftexts for Arminianism… you will see many (most? all?) of them list verses that affirm free will… again, as if that in any way served as a refutation against a position that affirmed both free will and predestination.

it is instructive that people think that these verses would in any way refute Calvinism, a system that affirms the free choices of men. it would be like trying to refute the aforementioned hypostatic union by pointing to scriptures that affirm Christ’s human nature, as if that would in any way serve as a refutation to a position that held to both his divine and human nature.

the real question, then, is whether Scripture presents predestination and free will as compatible or coexisting, or whether Scripture presents them as mutually exclusive. I know that many people believe or assume them to be mutually exclusive, but does Scripture share that perspective. That, I propose, is the real question at hand. And I personally find the answer to that question rather obvious.

2 Likes
149

i read through parts of the institutes awhile back and don’t remember that being the case

do you any calvin quotes supporting this claim?

150

Here is one I found quickly that i think makes it rather clear beyond a shadow of a doubt… i’m rather busy today but if you would like more i can do some more searching, let me know…

Therefore God provided man’s soul with a mind, by which to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong; and, with the light of reason as guide, to distinguish what should be followed from what should be avoided. For this reason, the philosophers called this directing part τὸ ἡγεμοvικόv . To this he joined the will, under whose control is choice. Man in his first condition excelled in these pre-eminent endowments, so that his reason, understanding, prudence, and judgment not only sufficed for the direction of his earthly life, but by them men mounted up even to God and eternal bliss. Then was choice added, to direct the appetites and control all the organic motions, and thus make the will completely amenable to the guidance of the reason. In this integrity man by free will had the power, if he so willed, to attain eternal life. Here it would be out of place to raise the question of God’s secret predestination because our present subject is not what can happen or not, but what man’s nature was like. Therefore Adam could have stood if he wished, seeing that he fell solely by his own will. But it was because his will was capable of being bent to one side or the other, and was not given the constancy to persevere, that he fell so easily. Yet his choice of good and evil was free, and not that alone, but the highest rectitude was in his mind and will, and all the organic parts were rightly composed to obedience, until in destroying himself he corrupted his own blessings.

151

problem is he doesn’t define free will herr

using the same word does not denote the same concept

i am relatively certain calvin reject libertarian free will for humans

i think this pertains to the “secret predestination” calvin alludes to

if memory serves, calvin sets up two kinds of will for God: one explicit one where He is said to will salvation for all men, and a secret one whereby God only wills salvation for some and damnation for others

but it’s been awhile since i read it so memory may be faulty

152

That’s what’s happened to me big time for the past 25 years and more. None of the shibboleths of Biblicism have survived.

153

me too and none of the shibboleths of my past atheistic naturalism remain

now i am a catholic creationist

154

Ah, all depends on where you start from. How did you arrive at that beginning?

155

made most sense to me as a computer scientist that all of reality is one big program

156

That was how you became an atheist naturalist? How?

157

well i considered myself a christian still, but metaphysically my beliefs were indifferent from atheistic naturalism

158

EVERY Christian theologian that acknowledges God’s omnipotence recognizes two kinds of will in God: one explicit one where he lays out his intended will (instructions, commands, intentions, desires), and one wherein he allows things to happen in the world, for whatever reason, that are “against his will.”

Take any murder that happened in the world yesterday… was it “God’s will” that it happen?

In one sense of God’s “will”, clearly not. There is even a commandment prohibiting it. Very obviously, murder is “against the will of God”.

In another sense, God for whatever reason “willed” not to interfere, “chose” not to intervene, “decided” to allow other free agents, and forces of nature to take their course uninterrupted. He could have stopped that murder from happening, but he “willed” not to stop it, although he had the power to stop it. Thus in another sense, it indeed happened “according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”

2 Likes
159

that’s a different sense than calvin meant

he thought God actively wills everything, including all the bad stuff that is against His will

I am sure we all disagree with this, so none of us are Calvin’s kind of Calvinist

what I see in this thread is people labeling beliefs as Calvinist which are not actually what Calvin wrote

160

If God is omnitemporal (as I think he is), there is no conflict. The conflict only arises in our minds because we are compelled to use time-based, tensed language. Jesus said “…before Abraham was born, I AM!” That is not good (time-based) grammar.