🚨 The Hidden Dualism in "Free Will" Theology 🚨

[SoteriologyA1]

At the core of every argument against God’s absolute sovereignty is a hidden dualism—the assumption that when something happens, it must be caused by either God or Will, but never both. This is the fundamental presupposition behind every non-Calvinist framework:

God is a cause "out of nothing"—He determines things, but only to a certain limit.
Will is a cause "out of nothing"—it determines things independently of God, even determining creature's character, preferences, and choices.

This sets up a dualistic system where God controls some things, and Will controls others. Will isn’t just human decision-making within God’s decree—it’s a separate, ultimate force that dictates what a person is and does. Will is, in effect, a second god.

So when we say God determines all things, they assume this means we are removing Will from the equation. And because their framework only allows for one ultimate force at a time, they conclude:

“If God determines everything, then Will no longer exists.”
“If Will is not the ultimate puppeteer, then God must be the puppeteer instead.”

That’s why they cry “robot!” and “puppet!”—because in their system, some thing has to be in the ultimate position of control. And ironically, they are perfectly fine with Will filling that role. They just object when it’s God.

But here’s the problem: If Will determines itself, unbound by nature, reasoning, or circumstances, then it is pure causeless self-determination—exactly what they accuse Calvinists of when we say God alone determines all things.

At the end of the day, their problem isn’t Calvinism. It’s their own dualistic framework. They assume a world where God and Will are co-determiners of history—two ultimate causes competing for control. But if that were true, then God wouldn’t be God—He’d just be another force within creation.

That’s why their system collapses when confronted with the truth that God alone is ultimate (Ephesians 1:11).

Everything—including human choices—flows from His decree, not from an independent force called Will. There is no second god. There is no co-determiner. There is only the one true God working all things for His glory.

 

[Arial]

This sets up a dualistic system where God controls some things, and Will controls others. Will isn’t just human decision-making within God’s decree—it’s a separate, ultimate force that dictates what a person is and does. Will is, in effect, a second god.

So when we say God determines all things, they assume this means we are removing Will from the equation. And because their framework only allows for one ultimate force at a time, they conclude:

“If God determines everything, then Will no longer exists.”
“If Will is not the ultimate puppeteer, then God must be the puppeteer instead.”

That used to amaze me when I first came across it. If Calvinism teaches that God determines all things, and if in the doctrine of Total depravity, it states that no one can come to God, that is, in their manner of expression, choose to believe; that if man's will is not free; then it is teaching that man has no will. The human will is treated as its own entity, completely uninvolved with the rest of their humanness or anything surrounding it. As though the will is making decisions for them. And even when they back off from the "no will" position in their language, since enough has been said about it in conversations on the subject, that is still how they are treating it.

That’s why they cry “robot!” and “puppet!”—because in their system, some thing has to be in the ultimate position of control. And ironically, they are perfectly fine with Will filling that role. They just object when it’s God.

Yes. And I realize it is a product of the majority of Christians alive now and for the last hundred years or so, having been taught nothing else, and that it is difficult to leave our traditions; at its very core is rebellion against God. The very same rebellion that the tempter brought to Adam and Eve and that they obeyed instead of God. They at least were somewhat innocent as to the far reaching consequences as they actually had no knowledge of evil. In addition to that it was serving God's intended far reaching purposes. Those who have been brought into Christ through faith, have no excuse. But that too must be serving his purpose.

They say far worse things about the doctrines of grace and God than the puppet thing of course. And here I would like to add that when they come to this dualism, they abandon the faith that is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. To be clear, I am not saying they abandon saving faith if that is what they have. If that is what they have it is because it was gifted to them by God and cannot be lost or abandoned. To make their arguments against Calvinism they begin looking at what is seen, and use it to attack God----though they genuinely believe they are defending him. They will bring up the worst scenario from the headlines they can think of and ask, "Do you think God made Hitler kill millions of Jews?" "Did God make the pedophile rape and bury alive that little girl?" They remove all consistent doctrine of God from their reasoning and religion.

 

[Eleanor]

At the core of every argument against God’s absolute sovereignty is a hidden dualism—the assumption that when something happens, it must be caused by either God or Will, but never both. This is the fundamental presupposition behind every non-Calvinist framework:
God is a cause "out of nothing"—He determines things, but only to a certain limit.
Will is a cause "out of nothing"—it determines things independently of God, even determining creature's character, preferences, and choices.
This sets up a dualistic system where God controls some things, and Will controls others. Will isn’t just human decision-making within God’s decree—it’s a separate, ultimate force that dictates what a person is and does. Will is, in effect, a second god.
So when we say God determines all things, they assume this means we are removing Will from the equation. And because their framework only allows for one ultimate force at a time, they conclude:

“If God determines everything, then Will no longer exists.”
“If Will is not the ultimate puppeteer, then God must be the puppeteer instead.”

That’s why they cry “robot!” and “puppet!”—because in their system, some thing has to be in the ultimate position of control. And ironically, they are perfectly fine with Will filling that role. They just object when it’s God.

But here’s the problem: If Will determines itself, unbound by nature, reasoning, or circumstances, then it is pure causeless self-determination—exactly what they accuse Calvinists of when we say God alone determines all things.

At the end of the day, their problem isn’t Calvinism. It’s their own dualistic framework. They assume a world where God and Will are co-determiners of history—two ultimate causes competing for control. But if that were true, then God wouldn’t be God—He’d just be another force within creation.

That’s why their system collapses when confronted with the truth that God alone is ultimate (Ephesians 1:11).

Everything—including human choices—flows from His decree, not from an independent force called Will. There is no second god. There is no co-determiner. There is only the one true God working all things for His glory.

Fallen man's will is not free, it is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34).
Scripture reveals the "free will" of man not as the power to make all moral choices, for he cannot choose to be sinless, but as the power to choose what he prefers.

 

[makesends]

At the core of every argument against God’s absolute sovereignty is a hidden dualism—the assumption that when something happens, it must be caused by either God or Will, but never both. This is the fundamental presupposition behind every non-Calvinist framework:

God is a cause "out of nothing"—He determines things, but only to a certain limit.
Will is a cause "out of nothing"—it determines things independently of God, even determining creature's character, preferences, and choices.

This sets up a dualistic system where God controls some things, and Will controls others. Will isn’t just human decision-making within God’s decree—it’s a separate, ultimate force that dictates what a person is and does. Will is, in effect, a second god.

So when we say God determines all things, they assume this means we are removing Will from the equation. And because their framework only allows for one ultimate force at a time, they conclude:

“If God determines everything, then Will no longer exists.”
“If Will is not the ultimate puppeteer, then God must be the puppeteer instead.”

That’s why they cry “robot!” and “puppet!”—because in their system, some thing has to be in the ultimate position of control. And ironically, they are perfectly fine with Will filling that role. They just object when it’s God.

But here’s the problem: If Will determines itself, unbound by nature, reasoning, or circumstances, then it is pure causeless self-determination—exactly what they accuse Calvinists of when we say God alone determines all things.

At the end of the day, their problem isn’t Calvinism. It’s their own dualistic framework. They assume a world where God and Will are co-determiners of history—two ultimate causes competing for control. But if that were true, then God wouldn’t be God—He’d just be another force within creation.

That’s why their system collapses when confronted with the truth that God alone is ultimate (Ephesians 1:11).

Everything—including human choices—flows from His decree, not from an independent force called Will. There is no second god. There is no co-determiner. There is only the one true God working all things for His glory.

Strangely, though, often they —and I'm talking about believers— don't mind operating within a deterministic system, where there are prior causes behind everything, UNTIL you put God at the head of it all as First Cause, and the subject turns to morality.

They actually, for what I call a humanocentric POV, and specifically, self-deterministic, (though both those terms are usually meant for other specific related issues), without realizing they are doing so, consider man to be a moral agent on the same level with God —not that they claim to have his moral ability and perfection, but to operate in the same moral realm. To me, that is blasphemy. At best, it forgets that he is Creator and we are mere creatures. Even Adam and Eve, and the good Angels, never had that status.

That view assumes that there is something objectively moral, by which both we and God are measured, rather than to see that morality is defined by God's being. The same tendency is in all their Doctrines: WE are the ones responsible to live up to God's plans for our lives and the hereafter, WE are the hinge upon which our eternal destiny turns, WE cannot be saved unless we relinquish our wills, God cannot accomplish his plans in us until WE obey, (and it goes on and on). They think of Sanctification as a matter of achievement, when it could even be argued that it, too, is monergistic. They look at all the Bible events in terms of performance of the different characters, and what spiritual lessons can be gleaned, and the mechanics of doctrines where it applies —the favorite of which, of course, is Eschatology, but also, the personal mechanics of Sanctification. Bookstores full of books are written about "how to", which is ironic, considering that THEY are the ones who claim that we don't understand (or, sometimes, even believe in) God's Love.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

At the core of every argument against God’s absolute sovereignty is a hidden dualism—the assumption that when something happens, it must be caused by either God or Will, but never both. This is the fundamental presupposition behind every non-Calvinist framework:

God is a cause "out of nothing"—He determines things, but only to a certain limit.
Will is a cause "out of nothing"—it determines things independently of God, even determining creature's character, preferences, and choices.

This sets up a dualistic system where God controls some things, and Will controls others. Will isn’t just human decision-making within God’s decree—it’s a separate, ultimate force that dictates what a person is and does. Will is, in effect, a second god.

So when we say God determines all things, they assume this means we are removing Will from the equation. And because their framework only allows for one ultimate force at a time, they conclude:

“If God determines everything, then Will no longer exists.”
“If Will is not the ultimate puppeteer, then God must be the puppeteer instead.”

That’s why they cry “robot!” and “puppet!”—because in their system, some thing has to be in the ultimate position of control. And ironically, they are perfectly fine with Will filling that role. They just object when it’s God.

But here’s the problem: If Will determines itself, unbound by nature, reasoning, or circumstances, then it is pure causeless self-determination—exactly what they accuse Calvinists of when we say God alone determines all things.

At the end of the day, their problem isn’t Calvinism. It’s their own dualistic framework. They assume a world where God and Will are co-determiners of history—two ultimate causes competing for control. But if that were true, then God wouldn’t be God—He’d just be another force within creation.

That’s why their system collapses when confronted with the truth that God alone is ultimate (Ephesians 1:11).

Everything—including human choices—flows from His decree, not from an independent force called Will. There is no second god. There is no co-determiner. There is only the one true God working all things for His glory.

there is no problem at all, this dualistic mode is non sensical

God told adam, eat of every tree but this one.

God gave Adam a choice. are you going to chose to love me, and let me serve you. or are you going to chose to deny me and serve yourself.

I do not think it was Gods will for adam to sin. (to even think so would have huge ramifications on the character of God which I want o part of)

nor do I think Adam acted out of his nature. (adam was perfect in all ways, alive to go. freely able to chose to allow God to serve him, or to serve himself).

so dualistic framework theory fails.

If a person is (as a Calvinist would say) so depraved, he would never even chose to receive Gods gift of mercy and grace. then that person has no free will,

If a person who is born again, will chose to believe Jesus no matter what. again, that person literally has no free will.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Fallen man's will is not free, it is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34).
Scripture reveals the "free will" of man not as the power to make all moral choices, for he cannot choose to be sinless, but as the power to choose what he prefers.

yet God accused the jews, who had the law. because the gentiles, who did not have the law. by nature keep the law

how can this be if by nature the lost is to not be able to do good.

Romans 2:14
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,

 

[Eleanor]

yet God accused the jews, who had the law. because the gentiles, who did not have the law. by nature keep the law

how can this be if by nature the lost is to not be able to do good.

Sin is not based on man's ability, but on God's nature, the source of his law.

Romans 2:14
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,

Meaning, that "the law to themselves" is the law by which they will be judged, since they do not have God's revealed law by which to judge them.

 

[Arial]

nor do I think Adam acted out of his nature. (adam was perfect in all ways, alive to go. freely able to chose to allow God to serve him, or to serve himself).

That is the second time you have used that phrase, "allow God to serve him." God serves no one. We serve him. No one "allows" God to do anything. He does as he pleases, and all his ways are perfect, because he alone is holy, holy, holy.

If a person is (as a Calvinist would say) so depraved, he would never even chose to receive Gods gift of mercy and grace. then that person has no free will,

You just gave a demonstration of the OP claim.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Sin is not based on man's ability, but on God's nature, the source of his law.

There was sin long before the law was given. So this does not make sense

Meaning, that "the law to themselves" is the law by which they will be judged, since they do not have God's revealed law by which to judge them.

It says they obeyed the law

They did not commit adultry. They honored their parents etc etc.

People do what we would consider to be morally good all the time. Being saved is not required for this

 

[makesends]

yet God accused the jews, who had the law. because the gentiles, who did not have the law. by nature keep the law

how can this be if by nature the lost is to not be able to do good.

Romans 2:14
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,

By nature —that is, at least, by conscience— they have something to define wrong as separate from right, and a way to relate good to right and evil to wrong. That does not mean that what they take for good, or even for obedience to a law, is actually good, because, as the Bible shows, they are still corrupt at the core, and at enmity with God.

As Jesus said, only God is good. Logically, then, if what someone does is actually good, the only good in it is God's doing, and not that person's. The believer has, from the outset, the work of the Holy Spirit who is dwelling within him. And so he lives. All others are dead.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

By nature —that is, at least, by conscience— they have something to define wrong as separate from right, and a way to relate good to right and evil to wrong. That does not mean that what they take for good, or even for obedience to a law, is actually good, because, as the Bible shows, they are still corrupt at the core, and at enmity with God.

As Jesus said, only God is good. Logically, then, if what someone does is actually good, the only good in it is God's doing, and not that person's. The believer has, from the outset, the work of the Holy Spirit who is dwelling within him. And so he lives. All others are dead.

Yes,

But we can not say they can not do good. And then see that they are doing good.

Either they can do good or they can not.

Do you see where I am coming from?

 

[makesends]

there is no problem at all, this dualistic mode is non sensical

That is what @SoteriologyA1 was trying to say, I thought.

But then, you demonstrate below that he was right, by the very use of that duality of which he spoke. You say that you don't think it was God's will for Adam to sin, and then you say that Adam did so by free will. So it was that very duality, that says it must be one or the other, and not both.

God told adam, eat of every tree but this one.

God gave Adam a choice. are you going to chose to love me, and let me serve you. or are you going to chose to deny me and serve yourself.

I do not think it was Gods will for adam to sin. (to even think so would have huge ramifications on the character of God which I want o part of)

nor do I think Adam acted out of his nature. (adam was perfect in all ways, alive to go. freely able to chose to allow God to serve him, or to serve himself).

so dualistic framework theory fails.

If a person is (as a Calvinist would say) so depraved, he would never even chose to receive Gods gift of mercy and grace. then that person has no free will,

If a person who is born again, will chose to believe Jesus no matter what. again, that person literally has no free will.

If that is the definition of free will, that it can choose, apart from God's causation, and, particularly, that it can choose God though dead, then you are right. That person has no free will, (by that definition).

Until a person is born again, he will never choose to believe Jesus, no matter what. He may well THINK he has done so, but he has not. This subject is beginning to careen off topic, I think, but I want to add this thought: He has made us, and not we ourselves. How then, can anything we do be absolutely spontaneous?

 

[makesends]

duplicate

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

That is what @SoteriologyA1 was trying to say, I thought.

But then, you demonstrate below that he was right, by the very use of that duality of which he spoke. You say that you don't think it was God's will for Adam to sin, and then you say that Adam did so by free will. So it was that very duality, that says it must be one or the other, and not both.

Only if it was gods will. Or his desire for adam to sin.

That is how i read the dualistic events.

God willed it, and he used our free will to accomplish it.

Now I believe this does happen in some areas. But not in all

If that is the definition of free will, that it can choose, apart from God's causation, and, particularly, that it can choose God though dead, then you are right. That person has no free will, (by that definition).

I see free will as basic.

Give me multiple options I have the freedom to chose which ever option I want.

Adam was given two options

Eat all of these trees and live

Eat of this tree and die.

Adam freely chose to do the second.

Until a person is born again, he will never choose to believe Jesus, no matter what. He may well THINK he has done so, but he has not.

I can’t agree.. because he would still be dead in his or her sin.

God justice demands a pernalty of sin, that penalty is death.

Gods love provided a way, paid for by his blood (for by grace we have been saved)

But salvation must come through faith. Again the old saying, God will not force you.

This subject is beginning to careen off topic, I think, but I want to add this thought: He has made us, and not we ourselves. How then, can anything we do be absolutely spontaneous?

How can we not?

Do we blindly walk in front of an oncoming care we see comming at us. Or do we spontaneously act and chose to move away from danger

 

[makesends]

Yes,

But we can not say they can not do good. And then see that they are doing good.

Either they can do good or they can not.

Do you see where I am coming from?

We can say that what good they do is not THEM doing it, and this is particularly well seen in the means of Salvation, and the ensuing righteousness that follows regeneration: It is the Indwelling Spirit that causes EVERY good thing the believer does. Here may be seen the answer to the riddle: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." & "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his purposes." It is also true for the unbeliever, except that his motives are not from the Spirit dwelling within, though we may call them good; they are only truly good in that God has caused them to be done.

 

[makesends]

Only if it was gods will. Or his desire for adam to sin.

That is how i read the dualistic events.

God willed it, and he used our free will to accomplish it.

Now I believe this does happen in some areas. But not in all


I see free will as basic.

Give me multiple options I have the freedom to chose which ever option I want.

Adam was given two options

Eat all of these trees and live

Eat of this tree and die.

Adam freely chose to do the second.

I can’t agree.. because he would still be dead in his or her sin.

God justice demands a pernalty of sin, that penalty is death.

Gods love provided a way, paid for by his blood (for by grace we have been saved)

But salvation must come through faith. Again the old saying, God will not force you.





How can we not?

Do we blindly walk in front of an oncoming care we see comming at us. Or do we spontaneously act and chose to move away from danger

Unless you (or someone else) can show me how this discussion is not going off topic from the OP, we need to move it to its own thread.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

We can say that what good they do is not THEM doing it,

No I could not say this, and why would I

If a gentile non believer in God loves his wife enough he never commits adultry. He has done good.. I would not say it is not him that does it

and this is particularly well seen in the means of Salvation, and the ensuing righteousness that follows regeneration: It is the Indwelling Spirit that causes EVERY good thing the believer does. Here may be seen the answer to the riddle: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." & "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his purposes." It is also true for the unbeliever, except that his motives are not from the Spirit dwelling within, though we may call them good; they are only truly good in that God has caused them to be done.

Yes I agree, it is faith in God and his ways

But salvation is no different. It is trusting in his promise and his gospel.

Righteousness does not follow regeneration. It is the cause of it.

Again, You can not be alive in sin. Sin must be forgiven first.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Unless you (or someone else) can show me how this discussion is not going off topic from the OP, we need to move it to its own thread.

The topic as I see it is dualism is it not?

That God will something (God is the cause)

Then man though his will does it?

Ie. God is the cause of adam sining against God. (It was his will)

But adam willed it. So he fulfilled Gods will

I disagree. God is not the cause at all..nor did he will it..

 

[makesends]

The topic as I see it is dualism is it not?

That God will something (God is the cause)

Then man though his will does it?

Ie. God is the cause of adam sining against God. (It was his will)

But adam willed it. So he fulfilled Gods will

I disagree. God is not the cause at all..nor did he will it..

Ok, @SoteriologyA1 , with your permission as the OP, we will continue along this vein. We have already spun off a different thread to a freewill thread, if you are interested in it, I think your contributions would be helpful there. We have only begun, by trying to come up with a common definition we can agree to, in order to proceed.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/free-will-what-is-it.2629/

But what I'm asking here, is whether this vein —that of the nature of and source of salvific faith— is by God or by man. That would be the question of the OP if I were to make a new one of this conversation.

But like I said, if you like, we can continue it here. As @Eternally-Grateful said, it does deal with something of the op, concerning whose will it is, anyway, that we are born again or not.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
That is what @SoteriologyA1 was trying to say, I thought.

But then, you demonstrate below that he was right, by the very use of that duality of which he spoke. You say that you don't think it was God's will for Adam to sin, and then you say that Adam did so by free will. So it was that very duality, that says it must be one or the other, and not both.

Only if it was gods will. Or his desire for adam to sin.

That is how i read the dualistic events.

God willed it, and he used our free will to accomplish it.

Now I believe this does happen in some areas. But not in all

makesends said:
If that is the definition of free will, that it can choose, apart from God's causation, and, particularly, that it can choose God though dead, then you are right. That person has no free will, (by that definition).

I see free will as basic.

Give me multiple options I have the freedom to chose which ever option I want.

Adam was given two options

Eat all of these trees and live

Eat of this tree and die.

Adam freely chose to do the second.

makesends said:
Until a person is born again, he will never choose to believe Jesus, no matter what. He may well THINK he has done so, but he has not.

I can’t agree.. because he would still be dead in his or her sin.

Yes. He is still dead in his or her sin.

God justice demands a pernalty of sin, that penalty is death.

Gods love provided a way, paid for by his blood (for by grace we have been saved)

But salvation must come through faith. Again the old saying, God will not force you.

'The old saying' would be well abandoned, because it is assumed what 'force' means, there. The Bible is not the source of that saying.

That salvation must come through faith only affirms the fact that salvific faith is the work of God in us, and not of our own production.

makesends said:
He has made us, and not we ourselves. How then, can anything we do be absolutely spontaneous?

How can we not?

Do we blindly walk in front of an oncoming care we see comming at us. Or do we spontaneously act and chose to move away from danger

False equivalence. That one choses to move from danger does not make their move spontaneous.

What do you mean by "spontaneous"? A dog, the Arminian argues, is not spontaneous, but merely instinctive, with learned behaviors. How is our moving away from danger not a learned response to impending doom? Notice that I'm not yet saying that it IS, but to get at the core of the question of free will. What is spontaneous? It is not a sort-of kind of word; it either is, or is not spontaneous.