Infide and Free Will

[rhutchin]

My version of free will is no different from anyone elses version of libertarian free will. An agent has LFW when they have the power of contrary choice. That is, if an agent has the power to choose something, call it x, then it is also within that agents power to not choose x, in the exact same set of circumstances. That is, the agent has the power to bring about its own effects.

God gives grace to all men both to exist in their substances and to be sustained, but, i contend, also to will(freely).

This grace does not act intrinsically so as to choose, but extrinsically, so as to enable free, libertarian choice. (i leave issues of concurrency open here without going into middle-knowledge) And then those who freely choose to humble themselves before God and trust in Christ for salvation, in faith,(by grace saturated wills) are given the grace of salvation, and purified in their hearts (justification). This allows the grace of being indwelt with the Holy Spirit to be possible, thus restoring man almost completely to His created order, since the flesh is still corruptible. From here, the graces of sanctification are given. Upon being resurrected restoration will be fully accomplished. So, God's Grace is present all throughout the life of man, but His Grace also sustains the whole process, so resisting His Grace is (afaict) possible throughout, (with exception to the glorified state, where such possibility may be overwhelmed by God's presence) and hence i think apostasy is possible, though not probable, since God's Spirit strongly witnesses and influences us toward perseverence.

The key contra-calvinistic part of this is that God offers (or attempts to offer) and sustains an offer of salvation to all as a proper restoration of the sinful nature, not out of compulsion by God, but from His essential goodness and love. God providentially moves and attempts to offer His salvation in faith to all men, but some resist his attempts no matter what.

This may not be exhaustive, as God gives many graces to His creation, but a general overview of what I currently affirm.

In the true libertarian sense, do you agree that your definition is a theoretical concept and probably never observed much in real life? And where it does occur in real life, do you agree that it requires that a person be indifferent to the options X and ~X?

What seems to be critical is the condition of man initially and what grace must do. If man is totally depraved, then grace must removed that depravity (or offset it in some manner). The Calvinist says that the result of grace is that a person believes the gospel. The Arminian says that grace allows a person to choose to believe the gospel so that the smarter people are saved.

[infide]

In the true libertarian sense, do you agree that your definition is a theoretical concept and probably never observed much in real life? And where it does occur in real life, do you agree that it requires that a person be indifferent to the options X and ~X?

no i dont, and ive never heard anyone argue such. I affirm that things like character, beliefs, situations, desires etc all influence our choices, towards X or ~X, and are taken into account by the will. But, such things do not exhaustively determine such things. In addition, formation of these antecedent influences may also be formed libertarianly by other influences, and so on.

What seems to be critical is the condition of man initially and what grace must do. If man is totally depraved, then grace must removed that depravity (or offset it in some manner). The Calvinist says that the result of grace is that a person believes the gospel. The Arminian says that grace allows a person to choose to believe the gospel so that the smarter people are saved.

and i am not satisfied with the "tidal wave"-grace picture (no special grace before.......*GRACE*(SPLASH)-->FAITH) of salvation that calvinists paint. God's grace and sustenance and action are present before being "regenerated" (that is, justified and filled with God's Spirit) AND after. And God's Word and Law and our consciences and even our life itself (and many other things) are graces in the "prevenient" sense (that is, preceding such regeneration). This leaves the opportunity for grace-sustained free-will prior to regeneration.

further, what do you mean by "smarter"? who ever said it takes intellectual sophistication to understand and respond to the gospel? AFAIK, 5 year olds often understand enough to trust in Jesus for their salvation. maybe its those who respond and cooperate with God's Grace are those who are moved along unto faith in salvation. (im not making a doctrinal statement, just a possible response to your "smarter are saved" misconception).

[Ormly]

I made the remark of being "smarter" in sense you are understanding it, Infide. They twisted for their convenience. Mock and ridicule as been the order of the day ever since. They've convinced of their motives.

[infide]

ormly,

thanks for clueing me in. sorry to hear others have ridiculed you around here, thats definately not what this place should be about.

out of curiousity - what did you mean by the original comment? were you just being facitious?

God bless.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
…And where[free will] does occur in real life, do you agree that it requires that a person be indifferent to the options X and ~X?

Infide
…I affirm that things like character, beliefs, situations, desires etc all influence our choices, towards X or ~X, and are taken into account by the will. But, such things do not exhaustively determine such things. In addition, formation of these antecedent influences may also be formed libertarianly by other influences, and so on.

Do you allow that the original condition of the will is that of Totally Depravity as both the Arminians and Calvinists assert? If you do, can you describe what you mean when you say that a Totally Depraved will is “free” (if you think it can be free at this point)?

rhutchin
What seems to be critical is the condition of man initially and what grace must do. If man is totally depraved, then grace must remove that depravity (or offset it in some manner). The Calvinist says that the result of grace is that a person believes the gospel. The Arminian says that grace allows a person to choose to believe the gospel so that the smarter people are saved.

Infide
and i am not satisfied with the "tidal wave"-grace picture (no special grace before.......*GRACE*(SPLASH)-->FAITH) of salvation that calvinists paint. God's grace and sustenance and action are present before being "regenerated" (that is, justified and filled with God's Spirit) AND after. And God's Word and Law and our consciences and even our life itself (and many other things) are graces in the "prevenient" sense (that is, preceding such regeneration). This leaves the opportunity for grace-sustained free-will prior to regeneration.

The whole purpose of grace (whether prevenient or saving) is to remove the will from its state of Totally Depravity and thereby give it the freedom to act contrary to its original depravity and to believe (something it could not do when Totally Depraved). At least, that seems to be the Arminian and Calvinist position. You seem to want grace to do something less than this (and maybe that is because you do not accept the Arminian/Calvinist idea that the will is Totally Depraved). What does your idea of grace, as expressed above, have to do with the issue of free will and the salvation decision?

Infide
further, what do you mean by "smarter"? who ever said it takes intellectual sophistication to understand and respond to the gospel? AFAIK, 5 year olds often understand enough to trust in Jesus for their salvation. maybe its those who respond and cooperate with God's Grace are those who are moved along unto faith in salvation. (im not making a doctrinal statement, just a possible response to your "smarter are saved" misconception).

Under Calvinism, God’s grace removes the will from its initial state of Total Depravity with the result that the will believes. The effect of grace is the same for all people so all people that receive God’s grace end up believing.

Under the Arminian system, grace removes Total Depravity but only enough to allow the person to personally “decide” on his own whether to believe.

Because of this, the decision to believe is uniquely tied to the individual and who that individual is. You may not like the term “smarter” (although it would seem that those who choose to believe are actually smarter (wiser?) than those who choose not to believe), but there has to be some distinguishing characteristic that differentiates the one who believes from the one who does not believe just as there is on any other decision two people make. It may be tied to the amount of information a person has, their past experiences, family environment, etc. If two people were exactly the same, then they would make the same decision. If two people make different decisions, then we know that they are different in some unique way.

So, do you allow that people make different decisions because they are different from each other? If you do, then would you have any reason to conclude that those who decide to believe are more free or that those who decide not to believe are less free? For example, if a person grows up in a Christian home where they receive instruction in the Scriptures, would the freedom of that person to decide to believe be different from that of a person who is raised in an atheist home and receives no instruction in the Scriptures?

[Ormly]

ormly,

thanks for clueing me in. sorry to hear others have ridiculed you around here, thats definately not what this place should be about.

out of curiousity - what did you mean by the original comment? were you just being facitious?

God bless.

Yes. I was asked why I chose God [words to that affect] I said was smarter, i.e., I recognized Him for who He was because He has revealed Himself to all mankind and to be received by them that they have life and have it more abundantly. Indeed, anyone who takes Him up on His offer is smart to do so.

In light of clear scripture the thing that is so astounding is that they refuse any idea that while man is capable of choosing anything from which he will/can benefit, he cannot choose God's way to life on his own, even if God stood in front of them and said, "It is I". Strange thinking and sad. But it only makes me angry when they willfully twist the clearness of scripture to support their bent.

[infide]

Do you allow that the original condition of the will is that of Totally Depravity as both the Arminians and Calvinists assert? If you do, can you describe what you mean when you say that a Totally Depraved will is “free” (if you think it can be free at this point)?

I guess the mere idea of it may be hypothetical - is there ever a time when the will exists and prevenient grace does not? but then, we couldnt really act at all (since God in His providence, and indeed grace, upholds our faculties and our choices). So the man acting in resistance to God's grace but upheld by it demonstrates the fallen nature of men - how he will use grace for his own gain. This is the natural man, the resisting man, the man working for his own nature.

so what I mean is that at every choice, the will has the ability to cooperate with prevenient grace and together with God choose some good thing. However, if they resist prevenient grace, then God in His Grace allows them to act in the sense of merely sufficient grace (upholding the will's abilities and substance but not its action).

So in the exact same circumstances the will can act either for sin and their own purposes or for goodness and righteousness and God's purposes. that is libertarian freedom.

whats also notable is that it is prevenient grace which would lead to salvific grace, under the right circumstances and cooperation from the will in this case.

The whole purpose of grace (whether prevenient or saving) is to remove the will from its state of Totally Depravity and thereby give it the freedom to act contrary to its original depravity and to believe (something it could not do when Totally Depraved). At least, that seems to be the Arminian and Calvinist position. You seem to want grace to do something less than this (and maybe that is because you do not accept the Arminian/Calvinist idea that the will is Totally Depraved). What does your idea of grace, as expressed above, have to do with the issue of free will and the salvation decision?

its not that i dont accept the idea - its just that either I dont understand it, or I cant see it as more than a hypothetical muse. aren't these "states" just sort of made up features of compatibilism? After all, if there is free will, then choices being "statically determined" by something is incorrect. its working in reverse - you believe that compatibilism is true, therefore there are such "states". Not that God does not give us life when previously a sentence of death was on our heads, so we pass from death to life - but that does not indicated the states you describe.

just in case the states are correct, then in that case, I would say prevenient grace "overcomes" that necessity to sin in that "totally depraved state" - and leaves man with libertarian freedom (at least in general). And able to choose Christ.

Under Calvinism, God’s grace removes the will from its initial state of Total Depravity with the result that the will believes. The effect of grace is the same for all people so all people that receive God’s grace end up believing.

which is quite an over simplification. on the one hand, the will believes, but then why does the will still choose to sin. in this "state" why does Grace not have the same necessity that sin in the "state of depravity" had? that is, necessity.

Under the Arminian system, grace removes Total Depravity but only enough to allow the person to personally “decide” on his own whether to believe.

Because of this, the decision to believe is uniquely tied to the individual and who that individual is. You may not like the term “smarter” (although it would seem that those who choose to believe are actually smarter (wiser?) than those who choose not to believe), but there has to be some distinguishing characteristic that differentiates the one who believes from the one who does not believe just as there is on any other decision two people make. It may be tied to the amount of information a person has, their past experiences, family environment, etc.

well, if the opposite of "fool" is "wise" then its hard to see how to escape the conclusion that those who believe are wise. That doesn't seem unbiblical or anything, as a good portion in the OT emphasizes wisdom as a guiding principle to life and spirituality.

In the same light, the statemen repeated in the NT "God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble." seems to suggest that there are characteristics (themselves responses to divine grace and light) which do fall into accord with salvation. That doesnt seem to violate any rational or biblical principle "God has mercy on whom He desires (the humble) and hardens whom He desires (the prideful).


If two people were exactly the same, then they would make the same decision. If two people make different decisions, then we know that they are different in some unique way.

but sometimes unique individuals do make the same decisions, and similar individuals make opposite decisions. This principle only works if LFW is false.

So, do you allow that people make different decisions because they are different from each other? If you do, then would you have any reason to conclude that those who decide to believe are more free or that those who decide not to believe are less free? For example, if a person grows up in a Christian home where they receive instruction in the Scriptures, would the freedom of that person to decide to believe be different from that of a person who is raised in an atheist home and receives no instruction in the Scriptures?

"more free" and "less free" are irrelevant as long as they are, indeed free. Thats the whole point of being "free". Every influence could be going the other direction, and you still have the categorical ability to act. On the other hand the influences could be equal, and you choose the same. Freedom is exhibited in both (though the choice may be more difficult when influences are unequal).

but then again, no one ever said life was easy, and oftentimes those influences and desires are themselves brought about through libertarian choices (which we cannot, obviously, fault God for).

The Christian growing up in the Christian home can just as easily reject Christ as the atheist, but both in light of God's revelation whether natural or special, are accountable for rejecting him. On the other hand, the Christian-home reared child could reject Christ, and the atheist-reared child accept Him upon hearing the gospel from his roommate in college.

to say that every situation must be exactly the same for the Weslyan position to work seems at best, a lack of imagination on your part.

God bless,
jd

[infide]

Yes. I was asked why I chose God [words to that affect] I said was smarter, i.e., I recognized Him for who He was because He has revealed Himself to all mankind and to be received by them that they have life and have it more abundantly. Indeed, anyone who takes Him up on His offer is smart to do so.

seems reasonable to me. It is rather interesting, dont you think, while calvinists chide arminians for something like youve said - their theologies intimate that they received a whole new nature from God (not just wisdom) to believe on His name and that makes them "special". in your view, anyone could be wise (and choose God) right? but on theirs, only them could have believed and that makes them super-special, and everyone else are mere animals.

God bless,
jd

[Ormly]

Interesting thing that these Calvinsts [this brand of reform thinkers] should believe that God would give intelligience to man and then inhibit it in him so that he can't choose God; actually strip him of his ability to make proper choices regarding life. Question: What good is intelligience without a freewill?