Agreed. It sounds like you’re just up against a small mob of us here that harbor suspicions that Calvinism (or many Calvinists at least) either seem to reject that statement, or at the very least follow it with a “… but …”. And for myself, I would even accept a "… but God’s Will will prevail ultimately.
[As a side note of possible interest, I have a friend who used to be a Calvinist - and in any case knows much more about it than I do since he’s actually read Calvin’s “Institutes…” - and he’s noted to me that Calvin himself, were he alive today would not make the cut to qualify as a “Calvinist” - or would be at most a “3-point” or “4-point” Calvinist or something like that. I don’t remember the details right now, but apparently Calvinism has ‘developed’ (for better or worse) since he was alive.]
Well, I can dive into what are probably our real divergences and disagreements here shortly, but with any such discussions I find it helpful to see just how far we actually do agree, as it helps to clarify what the real crux of our disagreement is…
So at this point, I will propose that the real difference I suspect that exists between us is how we would answer this question:
WHY does God allow people to act contrary to his will?
Yes, I think everyone in this thread has agreed with some variation on that, perhaps using different terms. That does look like common ground. But speaking for myself, this isn’t the part of Calvinism’s meticulous providence that I struggle to fathom.
The crux is when with one will God makes certain the precise actions God’s other will abhors. God doesn’t want Eve to eat a certain fruit, yet creates her such that she certainly will eat that fruit. In doing so she’ll completely follow her will because God gave her a will that prefers that choice. God not only forsees her choice, but determined her choice, even as she still chooses it, in a sense, freely.
Perhaps the following analogy will help. I hope it is horribly flawed and someone can show how Calvinists believe nothing like this about God. But from what I’ve been able to understand, both from this thread and other conversations and books, this is how full Calvinism with meticulous providence looks to me.
A coder decides to create a program. He types the instructions for how to draw a box. Start at this point, move up this far, then go perpendicular the same distance, back down the same distance, then back to the start. These instructions are his encoded will.
Next, the coder adds a comment above the coded instructions. “// This should play some nice music.” This is his expressed will.
The coder runs the program. It draws a box. It doesn’t play music. The coder is angry. His program, his own creation, has violated his will!
I could go on, but I think that’s far enough to make the point. Hopefully it’s clear how this story doesn’t show the coder in a good light. Having both the encoded will and expressed will is incoherent. Even if the coder fixed the instructions so the program played music, that “salvation” would seem more like correcting his own mistake. If this coder is analogous to God, I think it’s clear that this would depict a God hard to worship or love.
So please, Calvinists, show me how your system is better than this! I’d love to better understand where you’re coming from.
The “5 points” were originally created at the Synod of Dort as the response to Arminius on the differences between his views and those agreed upon at Dort. The 5 points are basically a summary of the main Calvinist view of predestination (Amyraldians differ on one point, I forget which; and hypothetical universalists [self included] could be argued to differ on what Limited atonement means). They don’t, however, include Calvinist sacramentology (that’s why many Presbyterians don’t consider Particular Baptists to be actual Calvinists), other aspects of soteriology, or certain other things that Calvin actually seems to have emphasized more than his much more controversial views on predestination.
Oh, and on something further up, and a definitely negative development; hyper-Calvinism is not very well-defined or consistently defined always, but one possible definition (probably more restrictive than that of some) is that it takes Calvinist views of election and then modifies them by denying that God loves the unelect.
I honestly have a hard time following the analogy, because, as you hoped, I fear it is indeed horribly flawed and nothing remotely how I think about God. In short, you’ve described programmer programming an entity that is literally pre-programmed, by definition an automaton. And yes, we Calvinists believe nothing of the sort. So I’m not even sure how to try to answer the analogy. At its basis is a core assumption completely the antithesis to what we believe, so I really can’t even work with the analogy as there is simply nothing analogous. We simply are not preprogrammed automata.
A far better way I think to conceive of what we’re talking about is using the philosophical tool of “possible worlds.” I believe you have a solid theological/philosophical background that you follow what I’m talking about… This is speculative and hypothetical, but I think a far better analogy. But let’s imagine that part of God’s power and omnipotence and omniscience entails the ability to (fore)see all possible worlds, and choose to enact or realize one particular one.
So Imagine one possible world where John Booth freely chooses to assassinate Lincoln, just as we recall from history. And God, looking at that possible world, finds what Booth did in that possible world to be evil, sinful, and abhorrent. Now let’s assume there is an alternate possible world where Booth refrained from the assassination, also completely of his own free will in that possible world. And what Booth did in that possible world was far more pleasing to God.
Now imagine that God, standing outside of time, before the creation of the universe, is given the option to choose between those two possible worlds; he can choose either of those to bring into reality. And for whatever his higher purposes (including perhaps the various downstream consequences), he chooses the option where Booth assassinates Lincoln.
Sure, perhaps God has his larger or overarching reasons for choosing that particular timeline of events, rather than the alternative. But how does it follow from this, that Booth’s action is not abhorrent to God? It was abhorrent when God “foresaw” the assassination when it was just a possible world. By choosing that particular possible world to bring into reality, why would Booth’s action magically cease to be abhorrent to God, simply because for whatever other higher reasons, that was the timeline/possible world that God chose to bring into reality?
Would you agree with me thus far, or at least follow my thought, by chance?
That way leads to the proliferation of epicycles (endless number of wills branching at each action), which is usually a symptom of poor understanding. Trying to impose ones will on a child (even in such success/failure binary) seems like a strange way of parenting to me. For me it was more about discovery – seeing the child unfold like a flower as he discovers himself. “Settling for” ?? really?
Nope.
Yes.
Yeah… I don’t much like either one. Open theist – God capable of a real relationship with us rather than just empty words.
The notion of free will has always been tempered by the existence of restraints. We have free will within those constraints be it physical or circumstantial.
It would appear to me that Calvinists are claiming that God sets those constraints so that no matter what we decide His will is still done. That makes a very manipulative God and freedom an illusion (IMHO). I got no strings to hold me down?
That depends on the content of God’s will. How much of a micromanager and control freak is God? I think the Bible makes it pretty clear the answer is not so much. People are constantly failing to live up to His hopes for them. Does God get it done some other way when that happens? I certainly think so. That is not micromanagement. That is just getting things done.
Well, first one observation about basic logic involved, then I’ll dive further into the question about the Bible.
But I will affirm, as axiomatic and self-evident logic, that yes, God needed some evil on our behalf in order to become a “forgiving” God. Had there never been any evil or sin whatsoever in any way within humanity, then God would by definition not be a “forgiving” God. We could logically say that he has/had the capacity to be forgiving should that opportunity ever arise, but by definition he would not “be” a forgiving God, as he would literally never have forgiven anyone.
It is like us living in a world without sin, without need of redemption, talking about how “God is a redeeming God” when he literally has never redeemed anyone. What sense does that make?
If in the entire course of eternity God had never, ever, not even once, ever forgiven anyone, what sense would it make to talk about him being a “forgiving God”?
Hence, yes, God “needs” some of our evil in order to have something to forgive, if he is going to literally be a “forgiving God.” This is inescapable, no?
Fair enough. I should have stuck to speaking for myself.
I still don’t understand how it can be nothing of the sort. I haven’t seen yet how you put two seemingly contradictory ideas together: that all things are ultimately ordained by God, and that some things are left open for a person to choose.
This is where I get the “all things ordained” from:
This is where I get the “some things open” from:
I can see how this works for those who believe human choices are only forseen by God, not ordained by God. God forsees everything, including many possible worlds where different choices are taken; God knows which world will be actualized through foreknowledge.
But, I had thought you didn’t hold to that view of choice. I thought you viewed an undetermined choice as a logical contradiction, seeing the only options as what mixture of God, environmental factors or chance does the determining. I got that from reading this:
I know others read that as you misunderstanding libertarian free will as being completely unconstrained, but my reading is that you didn’t make that mistake and instead were arguing that every creaturely choice must ultimately be determined by something beyond the creature. If I read you wrong, please let me know!
Anyway, if everything is indeed ordained and an undetermined human choice is indeed impossible, I don’t see how my “programmed” analogy misses the mark. I’ve also discussed this here with other Calvinists who have stated that everything is, ultimately, determined by God. When I ask how that differs from us being, ultimately, no better than programs, all I’ve heard is “mystery.”
Maybe you can show where you see things differently.
Sin might (or might not) be inevitable if there is free choice, but even if so, God was not obliged to create us at all. He still could have chosen to create a world without sin at all.
Hence the point still remains… logically, if there is no sin, there is nothing to forgive. He logically “needed” for sin to exist in this world if he was ever going to have anything to forgive, no?
But I don’t fathom how any Christian that believes we will be free from sin forever throughout eternal life can also maintain that sin is inevitable with free choice.
OK, I think we may be making progress here, if you agree with me insofar as God foreseeing all the free choices within the many possible worlds do not take away the free will of the agents within those possible worlds, or make them programmed?
So let’s say God sees possible world A where I freely chose to have Cheerios this morning for breakfast, and possible world B which is *identical to possible world B in every way except that I ate Raisin Bran this morning.
You would agree thus far that my will is free and unforced in each of those possible worlds?
Yes, you’re still misreading, I’m afraid… you’re still suggesting some kind of internal programming at work, that our natures are such that everysingle creaturely choice is predetermined and forced by the nature of said creature.
I’ve tried to explain repeatedly and It is almost getting tiresome but I don’t think you were deep into the discussion at that point. Let me give this illustration for maybe the 6th time: consider our eternal state and its nature: God will have determined our natures upon the resurrection, he will have given believers glorified, sinless, and holy nature that will be literally unable to sin. Calvinism recognizes that our nature at that point precludes us from being able to make certain choices, not because our will is somehow constrained, or every single choice preprogrammed and forced, but simply because our renewed and perfected human nature will literally be incapable of choosing to sin. It will be not in our nature.
But this new nature doesn’t dictate each single individual choice. We will at that point be free agents, free to choose what we want to do on any given day throughout eternity. Build a house, make a musical instrument, spend time with friends reminiscing, or whatever we’re going to do. No one’s will will be bound and controlled and dictated by their nature in that sense. We will be completely free to do whatever we want-- the only thing is that our nature will be such that we will never want to sin, therefore sinning will be impossible. But we will be free agents. We are not free to act against our nature; we will be completely free to act according to our nature.
I don’t really understand how this is remotely controversial - most Christians seem to agree that we will be given a new nature at the resurrection, perfect, sinless, glorified, and incapable of sinning… and also agree that this new God-given nature will not have pre-programmed every single choice we will be making throughout eternity, no?
God has made us free agents with complete liberty, we simply can’t act against our nature, that is what Calvinism is getting at at that point.
I’m not sure how they got so confused, but the point immediately above simply is a different topic entirely than the question of God predetermining “whatsoever comes to pass”. He foreordains whatsoever comes to pass not by programming our natures such that we are forced to make certain choices. There seems to be tremendous confusion at this point.
There is no might about it. Sin is a choice not a disease, or affliction.
I have never understood why people think this.
Do you realise the consequences of such a creation?
Yes, God could have created a world of slave but the worship would be empty. The whole point is that God wants people to choose Him, not to be forced to worship Him and obey.
Bruce Almighty got one thing right: you cannot force someone to Love you, and that is basically what such a world would be.
And that is just a ridiculous train of thought that leads nowhere.
Because the New Heaven and New Earth is not free will. We need a labotomy to live in it.
People just do not understand. It is a pipe dream. If/when it comes, we will lose all our freedom. (And IMO the will to live.)
The whole point of Heaven is that we are happy and content, but at what cost?
The same cost as battery hen that knows nothing better.
The truth is we cannot conceive an existence off this world and without the constraint of time. We have no form of reference to guide us. All we have is an assurance that we will love it. Perhaps that is enough.
I had started a different response, but thought it would just get distracting coming so I wonder if we might just stick strictly with this thought experiment… Just to get started, it sounds like you might agree with me thus far, but could we agree on this:
God foreseeing the free choices of humans in possible worlds does not force them or coerce them or control them to make the choices they do. Do we agree thus far?
Thus, again, let’s propose the following thought experiment:
Possible world “A”: this current reality where I ate Cheerios for breakfast this morning.
Possible world “B”: exactly identical in every way to Posslbe World “A”, except that I ate Raisin Bran for breakfast this morning.
Would you agree thus far that God knowing all the free choices that take place in each world do not force or coerce the individuals in those worlds to make the choices that they do? That their free choices are indeed free?
I would have thought that under meticulous sovereignty your will is both free and programmed. It can be both things.
And it is both because God didn’t merely “see” these possible worlds, as if they had some sort of existence beyond God. God imagined them up down to the finest detail, including just what sort of person “Daniel” would be in each of them, and exactly what circumstances would influence Daniel’s choice of breakfast.
It’s not just simple instructions. There’s a nearly infinite tangle of nested if/then statements that govern how each person acts, but under Calvinism it’s still determined, no?
Are you truly saying that only some things are determined by God, not all things? If that’s the case, yes, I see how it’s not programming. I see how my analogy doesn’t address that view. But so far I haven’t heard you specifically say that, and it seems to be one of the big dividing lines between Calvinist and non-Calvinist views.
Didn’t God give us that nature and place us in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in? And doesn’t that nature combined with those circumstances make for only one possible outcome, one that God both forsees and ordained?
Sure, but then most Christians don’t agree that “God from all eternity did … freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
No, no, no, no, NO, NO, no nein, no, non, no nyet, no, negative, no, negatory, no, and
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I’m not sure how many more ways I need to say it until I convince you we don’t believe this. I thought I just gave a long extended illustration to explain why this is NOT the case…
Why do you keep returning to this, do you believe that is the case? That our nature combined with our circumstances dictates our choices and makes for only one possible outcome?
Do you believe that our nature (inherited from something apart from God) combined with our circumstances makes us mindless automata, unable to make any free choices?
Or do you recognize as does most people that while our nature and circumstances (and nurture, etc.,) do indeed enormously influence our choices, that we are yet free agents, making real and free choices - influenced but not controlled by our nature?
Before we move on, I think we need to get clear on this point.
Do you follow that I do NOT agree that our nature combined with our circumstances make for only one possible outcome? That I believe our will is far more free than that? that we make real and free choices that are not dictated or predetermined by our nature and circumstances?
If not, I can try to find other languages in which to say “no” to your question above…
Yes, I hear you saying that our choices aren’t “dictated or predetermined by our nature and circumstances.” Can you also confirm that you don’t believe they’re determined by God?
I find it curious that theological discussions concerning predestination and fallen human nature seem to be oblivious to philosophical secular notions of causation and determinism, even though choice, freedom, and responsibility are germane to both, and these really must be consistent to make any sense. What is a fallen nature if not some element of causation?
Our choices are not fully determined by our nature. Some of our choices are free.
But sin damages our free will (making slaves of us to some extent). SO I identify sin with bad (self-destructive) habits. There are of course good habits also, where some of the good things we do are just acting on autopilot (our “nature”).
Our nature is a product of our own choices. If it is not a product of our choices then it is NOT our nature but our circumstances. And it is not the circumstances which define or create our nature but our responses to those circumstances. Sure our circumstances differ greatly and it is unwise to judge others because of this. We do not face the same choices, and the choices some are forced to make can be very difficult.
Finally there is nothing absolute, universal, or inviolable about our free will. It can be affected by MANY things including chemicals, physical damage, and illness.
I certainly can. But I think that necessarily means that God doesn’t know future while He is interacting with us. Otherwise His interactions become completely controlling and all the decisions are really His alone.
