1559 French Confession on human free will

[John Bauer]

Although [fallen man] has a will that incites him to do this or that, yet it is altogether captive to sin, so that he has no other liberty to do right than that which God gives him.

– French Confession of Faith (1559), art. 22 9 (link).

This formulation is exceptional. If someone wanted a single confessional sentence that destroys libertarian free will while preserving responsibility, this would be one of the best ever written.

 

[makesends]

Although [fallen man] has a will that incites him to do this or that, yet it is altogether captive to sin, so that he has no other liberty to do right than that which God gives him.

– French Confession of Faith (1559), art. 22 (link).

This formulation is exceptional. If someone wanted a single confessional sentence that destroys libertarian free will while preserving responsibility, this would be one of the best ever written.

As usual, it is easier (more likely true) to say what a thing is not, than to say what it is. Very good, and true.

But this allows for righteous acts, (by God's grace), when the Reformed say that even the [supposedly] righteous acts of fallen man are at the core corrupt and sinfully motivated. This FCF does little to address that point.

By implication, if fallen man has no other liberty to do right than that which God gives him, then he does have libertarian free will, as the Arminian will insist, to do anything else, uncaused to do so.

One of my contentions against another member here concerns the word, "contingency", here in WCF 3.1:

3.1 God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

To me, the word, "contingency", there is an expression of one cause depending upon antecedent causes, and that, by God's establishing it the principle, and in fact establishing even the meticulous choices. To that other member, it is an expression of "who knows"-ness, which to me turns the whole statement into a "pleases both sides" kind of thing.

I'll quote the FCF again, to keep the subject of the OP handy in responses to this post:

Although [fallen man] has a will that incites him to do this or that, yet it is altogether captive to sin, so that he has no other liberty to do right than that which God gives him.

– French Confession of Faith (1559), art. 22 (link).

This is an excellent statement concerning inability to do good, but it does not admit to meticulous causation. But, that's ok. Apparently Orthodoxy is not quite with me concerning meticulous causation. It may be that the FCF enhances or further defines this in the context. I wouldn't know-- I couldn't find this statement under XXII.

 

[John Bauer]

I couldn't find this statement under XXII.

Oops. I meant article 9. What a weird outcome, typing 22 when I meant 9.

 

[makesends]

Oops. I meant article 9. What a weird outcome, typing 22 when I meant 9.

Oh, well, I looked there, and still don't see meticulous causation, though it is not necessary to the conversation. I just wish one of the confessions would come right out and say it, with no possibility of mistake via equivocation or other fence riding. But, I could be wrong. If so, I wish someone could logically show me how it is possible for anything to happen that God did not intend to happen.

 

[John Bauer]

I wish someone could logically show me how it is possible for anything to happen that God did not intend to happen.

I am fairly certain that can only happen at the presuppositional level.

 

[JesusFan]

I am fairly certain that can only happen at the presuppositional level.

he did not directly cause all that happens, but allows for it to happen for his purposes and plans

 

[makesends]

he did not directly cause all that happens, but allows for it to happen for his purposes and plans

Get more precise, for me please. Are you referencing the fact that he uses means to accomplish his purposes and plans, as over against "doing it himself"? "Allows it to happen...", in this context, while carefully put so as not to blame him for anyone's wrongdoing, is, (to me, granted), a bit of equivocation, rather dangerously permitting the notion that something can happen apart from his causation. It denies him being the only first cause.

 

[JesusFan]

Get more precise, for me please. Are you referencing the fact that he uses means to accomplish his purposes and plans, as over against "doing it himself"? "Allows it to happen...", in this context, while carefully put so as not to blame him for anyone's wrongdoing, is, (to me, granted), a bit of equivocation, rather dangerously permitting the notion that something can happen apart from his causation. It denies him being the only first cause.

God did not create sin and evil, but knew that would come to pass into His creation, as from eternity past had the plan of the Cross of Christ ready go into real time once the Fall happened

 

[makesends]

God did not create sin and evil, but knew that would come to pass into His creation, as from eternity past had the plan of the Cross of Christ ready go into real time once the Fall happened

See, if he knew it would happen as a result of creating, but created anyway, then he intended it. I don't say he created it, but he caused that it be.

And that I can honestly say from at least four different directions:
1. It is not of itself a made thing. It does not, in the same sense as we do, exist.
2. It is necessarily entirely within his sovereign control, and is a result of his sovereign will.
3. In all its evidences, it is used for God's purposes. He does not just turn its harm into good, but intentionally uses it for good purposes.
4. There is logically nothing but God that can happen all by itself. Sin is not an accident.

(Maybe a good study of the word, 'foreknow', and derivatives, is in order here. God does not foreknow, without decreeing. The use of the word in the Bible contextually uses the idea of God DOING something.)

For starters, Alexander Cruden, of Cruden's Concordance, per Duck AI:

Interaction of Foreknowledge and Divine Decree​

Cruden understood foreknowledge as inherently connected to God's will and action in the world. He posited that God's omniscience, which includes foreknowledge of all events, implies a divine decreeing that is purposeful and intentional.​

​

Theological Implications​

He believed that God's foreknowledge wasn't passive but actively involved in shaping the course of history and individual destinies. This suggests a framework where God's knowledge leads to specific actions and decrees, reflecting a coherent plan for creation.​

​

Essential Consideration​

Cruden emphasized that God's foreknowledge affirms His sovereignty. The knowledge of future events, choices, and actions by individuals is intertwined with divine decrees, ensuring that God's plans are ultimately fulfilled.​

But, I think you would agree with the above.