8 essential components for discerning God’s will

Mark, I don’t really want to belabor this, but I keep asking what the difference is and you keep giving answer to others questions.

Either way (God decreeing or God simply infallibly knowing ahead of time), the choice is set in stone and cannot be changed. So what is the difference? The actual difference? It’s not a “gotcha question.” I am curious as to how you would describe the difference.

You have brought some other issues into the equation, which are examples of various things.

Think of it, God decreeing someone to get in debt excessively, or pick a bad job, or moving to a city where things go bad, or getting into a car accident. I don’t think Scripture teaches that.

But we actually know that he does these kinds of things, right? We know he decreed a slave to be sold. We know he decreed a whole large group of people to be slaves multiple times over more than a thousand years. We know he appointed rulers who would make life miserable for people and he did it in order to make life miserable for people. We know he decreed an man to pursue a woman over his express law and the man’s parent’s objection. We know that he decreed a man to betray Jesus. We know that he decreed the murder of Jesus. And we could go on. And he did all this for his glory and his purposes. So why is it that we don’t think he would decree something else for his glory?

What is a bad job? Or a city where things go bad? Car accidents? By what standard do we determine these bad?

I can argue that man has free will and that God has a plan that He is carrying out and not drift into either Open Theism, where God is anxiously waiting to see what His creation will do, or Determinism, where man is following the ‘divine programming’ that exists within. Can you clarify?

You can argue whatever you want, but yet you seem to deny Calvinists the same right. Many Calvinists (if not most) believe both that God is sovereign and that man is free and responsible. Yet you talk about them not wanting to go where that leads. So why must Calvinists accept your view? Why can they not argue for their view?

The problem for you is that even if you take a simple foreknowledge view, you still haven’t preserved “freedom of choice.” The choice is still set by God’s infallible knowledge and cannot be changed.

I should say that I agree with the Society of Evangelical Arminians(link is external), not the traditional teachings of Arminianism (a denial of predestination, the ability to ‘fall away’ from salvation, etc).

So you acknowledge that there is a variety of Arminian beliefs, but seem to deny that there are a variety of Calvinist beliefs? Why must all 5 point calvinists agree with your view of where the position leads? Why can they not, like you, assert certain beliefs that may seem to be problematic for others?

Jay, it seems to me you want your cake and eat it too. You want to preserve for yourself the right to nuance your beliefs and refuse to be forced to what others see as logical conclusions, but you deny that right to others. I don’t think you can have it both ways.

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to this thread. I admit again, I do not have all the answers. In fact, I side with what several of you have already suggested or openly maintained, which is that we finite beings cannot fully comprehend this subject or completely answer every question. When I stated earlier that man’s free will is an illusion, I was speaking more from a philosophical point of view. Sovereignty, by definition, means without external boundaries. One way we describe God’s sovereignty is to say that He can do anything He wants to do. No one places any kind of limitation on Him; His only limitations are self-imposed (i.e. His holiness denies Him the opportunity to participate in sin). By that definition, there can only be one sovereign because eventually all individuals’ desires collide with those around them. Certainly you would all agree with that statement. This lack of personal free will is evident every day for we humans. After all, we are all constrained by the laws of physics - limited by something outside of ourselves. I cannot turn myself into a spirit and waft through walls, nor can I fly without mechanical aid. As you can see, my notion of personal free will is an illusion, it is limited.

Now, how do I believe that God’s sovereignty and man’s free will intersect. I am not a determinalist or fatalist because that is not what the Bible teaches. I completely agree with what John Brian posted earlier, “God is sovereign over the good and the bad, and both serve his purpose. Man is responsible and will be judged for the evil he has done, even though that evil ultimately serves God’s purpose.”

Ryrie puts it this way:

God has a plan which is all-inclusive, which He controls, which includes but does not involve Him in evil, and which ultimately is for the praise of His glory. (Basic Theology, p. 43).

Ryrie goes on to describe this relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will as an antimony - a contradiction between two apparently equally valid principles or between inferences correctly drawn from such principles - and then reminds that any apparent antimony in scripture is just that, apparent, because scripture never contradicts itself.

I try not to over-emphasize one truth to the detriment of the the other. I fully accept and acknowledge man’s responsibility and accountability for his own actions before God. However, I am unwilling to diminish in any way the nature, character, actions or glory of God. I cannot fully reconcile these two biblical truths, What I am left with is what sound’s like a deterministic position when talking about God’s sovereignty but without relinquishing man’s responsibility because God has declared it so. The fact that I cannot fully reconcile these truths only means I am not as wise as God, but it does not give me the right to reduce in any way the declarations God has made about these truths in scripture.

This is the basis of my earlier statements. If God’s planning or activity is contingent on or altered by our decision making, then He isn’t really sovereign after all. He is limited and therefore not even qualified to be called God. The only individual who actually has an entirely free will is God.

[Larry]

You can argue whatever you want, but yet you seem to deny Calvinists the same right. Many Calvinists (if not most) believe both that God is sovereign and that man is free and responsible. Yet you talk about them not wanting to go where that leads. So why must Calvinists accept your view? Why can they not argue for their view?

The problem for you is that even if you take a simple foreknowledge view, you still haven’t preserved “freedom of choice.” The choice is still set by God’s infallible knowledge and cannot be changed.

I should say that I agree with the Society of Evangelical Arminians(link is external), not the traditional teachings of Arminianism (a denial of predestination, the ability to ‘fall away’ from salvation, etc).

So you acknowledge that there is a variety of Arminian beliefs, but seem to deny that there are a variety of Calvinist beliefs? Why must all 5 point calvinists agree with your view of where the position leads? Why can they not, like you, assert certain beliefs that may seem to be problematic for others?

Jay, it seems to me you want your cake and eat it too. You want to preserve for yourself the right to nuance your beliefs and refuse to be forced to what others see as logical conclusions, but you deny that right to others. I don’t think you can have it both ways.

Actually Mark, that’s exactly what I am saying. The only individual who actually has free will is God. If His decisions are limited in any way, including by our choices, He is actually not sovereign. That’s the underlying thought, the only explanation for, verses like Ephesians 1:9.

I understand that you believe I’m ‘nuancing’ my beliefs and not allowing Chip to do the same, but Chip’s definition of Calvinism doesn’t line up with Calvinism as it is usually taught. And that’s why I made an issue of it. Because at the end of the day, Calvinists need to either believe what they want to believe - and in that case, don’t call it Calvinism, or take the label and all the baggage in it. Otherwise, there’s no point in using the term. Chip can insist all he wants that “The issue of personal choice is really an illusion for everyone except God”, but if God must only execute those things that will happen, then you cannot, in any serious way, argue that man has any kind of free will to do anything outside of what God has explicitly decreed must occur. You’re a determinist.

Chip has explicitly stated - twice now in this thread, and elsewhere in others - that God is not sovereign if there is any iota of compatibilism. I’ll grant that I feel very strongly on compatibilism than most here, but I can’t believe that Chip is allowed to denigrate God’s sovereignty in this way and no one is saying anything else about it.

[Jay] My point - and my only point - is that I have talked with many Calvinists that define their concepts exactly as Chip defines his and frame the arguments the exact same way he does, but then they refuse to admit that they have actually described determinism, not Calvinism. So then the people that believe that should be rightly labeled as Determinists, and not Calvinists. It’s the same way with reprobation / double predestination, where they will insist up and down that God chooses some, but then they can’t actually come out and say that because He ‘passes over’ others, they are predestined to the Lake of Fire and there is nothing that can be done for them. If you don’t believe me, spend some time reading Boettner’s “Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” or Calvin and you’ll see what I mean.

I have no problem with there being ‘shades’ of Calvinism or ‘shades’ of Arminianism. I have a big problem with calling Determinists something that they are not, and so should Calvinists. I do not understand why I, as an Arminian, am defending Calvinism as a belief system against a misrepresentation of Calvinism.

Jay,

As i am thinking through the posts on this thread, I am wondering if some of the problem we are discussing stems from terminology. What exactly do you mean by free will? Besides the physical realm examples I have already given, scripture seems to be clear that man is not free spiritually either. The lost are described as slaves to sin who are utterly and completely incapable of choosing God for themselves. How is this a free exercise of the will.

I used Joseph as an illustration in my post last night, and this morning came across Stephen Altrogge’s God Doesn’t Do Hollywood Endings post.

Here is how he tells the Joseph story:

The story of Joseph is no different. Joseph was an arrogant jerk, running his mouth about his dreams and visions, proclaiming that one day he would be the king of the family. His brothers despised him, almost killed him, thought better of it, and threw him in a well. Hollywood would have the story end there. Joseph would learn his lesson, the brother’s would feel guilt, and everyone would share a big group hug at the end.

But it didn’t end there.

Joseph was sold as a slave. He took over the daily operations at Potiphar’s house, and turned Potiphar into a very wealthy man. Potiphar’s wife had the hots for Joseph, constantly trying to get him into bed, but because Joseph feared God, he refused. Hollywood would stop the story here too. The righteous Joseph would be vindicated, set free, and would return triumphantly to his family.

But it didn’t end there.

Joseph was framed by Potiphar’s wife, and thrown into prison. Imagine the confusion and hurt Joseph felt. Why had things gone so wrong? He had done everything right, and he ended up in the slammer. Why was God leading him on such a torturous route? Why wasn’t God fixing things?

We know how the story ends. God did eventually deliver Joseph from prison and install him as the second dog in Egypt. But it wasn’t a pretty story – at least not from human perspective. But human perspective is so short-sighted and unimaginative.

Libertarian Free Will

…means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

Compatibilism in contrast:

…affirms that man freely chooses what God has determined that he will chose. In this way, the idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible for his actions are compatible ideas. Free will is affected by human nature and man cannot choose contrary to his nature and desires. This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices. But due to the effects of the fall, as contained in the doctrine of total depravity, man’s nature is corrupted such that he cannot choose contrary to his fallen nature — He cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith apart from divine intervention.

The article uses the phrase “free choice” rather than “free will” and the difference between the 2 views has to do with the effect of the Fall on man’s ability to choose. In the first, the Fall has no apparent affect on his ability to make spiritual choices, while in the second, it most definitely restricts that area of choice for man.

Romans 8:5-8 affirms compatibilism

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Free Will is described as the:

“ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition,” and specifically that these “free will” choices are not ultimately predestined by God.

This article goes on to note that:

…the choices of man are not only ultimately determined by God, but morally determined by one’s nature. Man is indeed a free moral agent and freely makes choices, but in his natural state he necessarily acts in accordance with his fallen nature.

Here are 2 previous SI threads on the subject of Free will:

2007 - Free Will

2010 - Free Will Redux

I appreciate the dialogue. I am not being obtuse.

To me there is a HUGE difference between God allowing something, and God decreeing something.

Example: As a parent, I often tell my son to stop running in the house because he might fall and hurt himself. If he continues to run and falls, he chose that. I console him, use it as a teaching moment, and move on. What if while he was running I stuck out my foot and tripped him. That to me is like the decree. God is now interdicting Himself directly into the situation but it is “darker” as I caused the result.

Note that in both cases what happened followed my will since I allowed the situation in either case.

Scripture is clear that God does interdict Himself into many situations. He is free to do that. What I am saying is that Scripture does not indicate that God decrees everything that happens. At least I haven’t found it if it does. Saying that all things conform to His will is NOT EQUAL TO God decreed what happened in all situations.

I am hoping I was clear but apparently not.

First, let me add that Eph 1:11 is primarily communicating how God coordinates our salvation. It isn’t about whether God ordained my underwear choice throughout my life.

From there, “being predestined according to the purpose if Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will”. Well, predestined is talking about our position before God, whether we are in the elect. Following that the verse says God works our lives to accomplish that fact. To me this is general. God uses the events of your life to bring about His will, your salvation. It would continue into sanctification and glorification. To my understanding of context this does not necessarily include every detail of my life, but certainly includes that which is necessary for God to accomplish my salvation. It may include the requirement that God pick my underwear choice today, but need not. If my underwear today is not relevant to God’s plan for me, then I am free to pick. He is aware of it, approves it, and knew of it in eternity, but it wasn’t decreed by Him. If for some reason my underwear did matter, than God could decree it so that I must pick that pair.

First off - Jim, I agree with and heartily affirm all of the points you made at 10:49 AM. No problems there. :)

Chip - I think you are right and that some of this is semantics. That’s why it gets so difficult to discuss the subject online, and I probably should have PMd you to talk before I opened up the rhetorical guns; there is an element of public statements being addressed publicly but also putting you squarely in a bad place, and I think that I ended up doing it even though I didn’t want to attack you personally. I apologize for that.
As for me, I struggle with reconciling where I am on your two points (Libertarian free will / compatibilism). Romans clearly teaches that man is dead in trespasses and sins (Romans 1-3, Ephesians 2:1-10) and therefore cannot choose God without divine enablement (John 6:41-51). The way I see it, Christ’s death on the cross is sufficient for everyone who ever lives/lived, but effective only for those who will actually choose to believe, and that they can only choose to believe because God’s invitation is available for all men (1 John 2:2). God, having all knowledge (and so much more than I can even begin to fathom), knows not just that I believed the gospel, but also knows of a possibility that I rejected the gospel (as I did for a time prior to salvation).
One of the stories in the OT that I believe really demonstrates this is found in I Kings 13:1-6:

1 And behold, a man of God came out of Judah by the word of the Lord to Bethel. Jeroboam was standing by the altar to make offerings. 2 And the man cried against the altar by the word of the Lord and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name, and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who make offerings on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.’” 3 And he gave a sign the same day, saying, “This is the sign that the Lord has spoken: ‘Behold, the altar shall be torn down, and the ashes that are on it shall be poured out.’”4 And when the king heard the saying of the man of God, which he cried against the altar at Bethel, Jeroboam stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, “Seize him.” And his hand, which he stretched out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back to himself. 5 The altar also was torn down, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign that the man of God had given by the word of the Lord. 6 And the king said to the man of God,“Entreat now the favor of the Lord your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me.” And the man of God entreated the Lord, and the king’s hand was restored to him and became as it was before.

And yet there is a literal, ‘predestined’ fulfillment of that exact prophesy that comes to pass in 2 Kings 22:15-18:

15 Moreover, the altar at Bethel, the high place erected by Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, that altar with the high place he pulled down and burned, reducing it to dust. He also burned the Asherah. 16 And as Josiah turned, he saw the tombs there on the mount. And he sent and took the bones out of the tombs and burned them on the altar and defiled it, according to the word of the Lord that the man of God proclaimed, who had predicted these things. 17 Then he said, “What is that monument that I see?” And the men of the city told him, “It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and predicted these things that you have done against the altar at Bethel.” 18 And he said, “Let him be; let no man move his bones.” So they let his bones alone, with the bones gof the prophet who came out of Samaria.

To me, the fact that Josiah takes bones from the tombs and defiles the pagan altar and then realizes that he has fulfilled the earlier prophesy by the ‘man of God’ is a strong argument for my position and against a simple foreknowledge/determinist view. That’s before we can get into the fact that Josiah’s parents chose to name him Josiah, and whether or not they did so expecting that their son would be the one to fulfill the prophesy of ‘the man of God’. I personally don’t think that was a choice by his parents in the conscious expectation that Josiah would fulfill the 1 Kings prophesy, but we won’t know that for certain this side of Glory. There are other stories like this in the OT that I could bring up, but I don’t have the time now to expand any further. If you want to take a stab at explaining your interpretation of those texts, I’d be really interested, as I’ve never seen a 5 pointer really interact with that idea or concept.

But that’s beside the point, and as far as I can go before my head swims. What does it mean for God to know things that don’t occur? I don’t know. But I know that omniscience means ‘knowing everything’, man is held guilty for all the works and thoughts that he has done (Revelation 20:11-15) and I have to rest in that.

To my understanding of context this does not necessarily include every detail of my life, but certainly includes that which is necessary for God to accomplish my salvation.

So “all” doesn’t mean “all”?