Reconsidering Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense

[His clay]

The following is a little piece I wrote on a Sunday afternoon in 2016. I was part of a group who were watching a video by Tim Keller. I'm placing this writing in the Arm/Cal section because the issues strongly overlap with a lot of the issues in the forum. I originally posted this to my facebook account. However, after looking again today, I could no longer see a "notes" section in facebook.
===============================================

Disclaimer

I must begin this with a disclaimer. If you are not familiar with the "problem of evil," then you most likely will not follow the points made here. I assume that my reader is already familiar with it. Further, this is not an elaboration on my views of human nature and "freedom". What this means is that this is fairly one sided; the full picture has not at all been given. If this note bothers you, then by all means give me a call, message me, or talk to me in person. I would be very happy to further explain things.

Libertarian freedom is not to be confused with a libertarian view in politics.

Setting and The Argument

Earlier today a group of us were going through a very good discussion guide, and the topic today concerned the problem of evil. In the discussion that ensued I mentioned some points of disagreement, but I left them ridiculously abbreviated. It is not my intent in this note to explain the problem of evil as raised by some, since my audience is mainly aimed at those who participated in the discussion. The point here is to further discuss what was raised earlier for the members of the group to consider at their leisure. The focus here is upon one very popular form of theodicy. It is a defense against the problem of evil by assuming a "greater good" type of argument where God knew that the greater good of free loving relationships was better than any other possible world. Therefore, God created man with a "free" will that can either move toward evil or toward good. In this argument, it is assumed that free will is libertarian freedom. God took what He knew would be a risk to create men this way, but the greater good of a free loving relationship was worth the cost, and the rest is history. Hence, we have evil because of man's fall; and God is supposedly exonerated from any kind of powerlessness or lack of goodness.

Responding to the Argument in a Positive Way

Some things do commend the argument to people. First, everyone readily agrees that forced love is not love at all. This matches human experience to a great degree. Just about everybody readily understands that (for example) a forced marriage is definitely going to have to overcome some obstacles. "Love" is going to be one of those. So, the argument readily coheres with what people generally experience.

Second, the argument is often coupled with good motives. People will often raise this argument as being--what they assume--the only way to defend God from accusations against His holiness; and it keeps man responsible, since man is entirely to blame. Whether this is really what happens is beside the point at the moment. The motives of others are good. All Christians should agree that God is holy, and man is accountable to Him. The motivation of preserving these truths is certainly good.

Third, the argument seems to be quite popular as an answer to the problem of evil.

Perhaps there are other points to be commended, but they are really not coming to mind. Unfortunately, the problem of the above virtues is that they serve as half-truths. They are viewed positively because there is certainly an element of truth in them. However, what is the cost associated with this solution?

(Part 1 of 4)

 

[His clay]

(Part 2 of 4)

Responding to the Argument in a Negative Way

As one can see, this section is larger than the positives. I would hope that these points would at least give the reader a reason to take a pause. They are also just points; a much longer elaboration is not the aim here.

First, the very first issue that should give a person pause is the relationships held within the Trinity. If a truly free loving relationship logically necessitates that one has the ability to do evil or not, then either intra-Trinitarian relationships are a facade; or then one has to make modifications in the very nature of the Godhead. God is holy; and the various members of the Trinity exist in perfect relationship to each-other. Sin is not a possibility with God. Hence, now one can see why this relationship would be a facade given the version of "free" will mentioned above.

However, some would go the rout of making modifications; but then where would this lead? If God had the ability to sin or not to sin, then we Christians would have our faith completely undermined. While Scripture says that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), the version of freedom given above says that God can and must be able to lie in order for His actions to be considered "free". The truthfulness of God is, perhaps, the key foundation upon which the Christian faith is built; but if this is called into question by a modification of His nature, then Christianity is soon to collapse.

Now, perhaps the above is a false dichotomy; maybe those are not the only two options. However, I have not seen them. Therefore, I do not consider the libertarian view of human freedom a solution. Rather, it would be more like a person hacking to pieces the very branch he was standing upon. This would be reason for pause number one.

Second, God's knowledge of all things ends up creating rather severe problems with the solution given in the "free will" theodicy defense. The "risk" point, italicized in the first paragraph, is utterly impossible to maintain while granting the point that God knows all things (irrespective of time). He was absolutely not making a risk, since He knew exactly what would come of such a creation. "Risk" assumes that God did not know the future or was limited in His knowledge by the non-existent future actions of men. This is very much an Open Theism or Process Theology assumption that flies in the face of many passages speaking of God's knowledge of the future.

With God's knowledge of all things in place, then the solution seems less and less like a solution. A person can very easily object upon the basis of the parent/child relationship. A parent could not be considered good if he/she let the child play in the street knowing full well that the child was in enormous peril. Hence, the "goodness" aspect of God's character is still under great question. One can say that the parent just wants to respect the child's "freedom," but this is hardly an answer. However, a parent knows that the street and cars present extreme peril; even more so God knows with utter certainty that evil would inevitably result upon His creation. Therefore, appeals to a "free" loving relationship really do not help the case; it only pushes the problem upon different grounds. This would be reason number two for pause.

Third, the "free" will defense will suffer at the hands of glorification. What is that? "Glorification" simplistically refers to that time when a believer will be given a completely redeemed nature where sin is no more. Unfortunately, according to the "free" will defense, this great and wonderful time can no longer be considered a real, free, loving relationship. More modification is necessary, and now one has to deal with the potential of evil throughout all eternity. Evil will NEVER be finally resolved. However, I do not follow that modification; it is flatly unscriptural. Thankfully, sin will be finally dealt with, and heaven really will be heaven! Sin and sorrow will cease, but this means then that the definitions of "freedom" and "relationship" needs to be jettisoned used in the "defense". Yet another reason for pause has been given concerning accepting Plantinga's free will defense.

 

[His clay]

(Part 3 of 4)

Fourth, Jesus Christ and Satan also become rather anomalous. Strangely enough, Jesus never sinned, though He supposedly possessed libertarian freedom. Strangely, this amounts to a person flipping a coin for 33 years, and it always lands heads. Every flip of the coin would represent one "free" decision. After all, libertarian freedom cannot admit to any rhyme or reason for why a person chooses as he/she does, so then decisions become chance events. Even after Plantinga makes the qualification of "personal" causation rather than "event" causation, he still has the same issue befalling him. "Chance" is still knocking on the door, and it really seems quite strange that Jesus lived a perfectly sinless life, in a perfect "relationship" with His Father; and all the while it just happened to be this way. Given libertarian freedom, the probability seems to be quite absurd.

On the other hand, one could view the "freedom" of the "defense" as misguided. When a gambler always wins without exception, then we start to think that something other than chance is at play. Maybe a causeless view of the will is wrong?

Satan seems to always choose evil. Is he then not blameworthy? According to the libertarian freedom in the defense, he is not blameworthy, since he can only choose evil. Maybe Jesus and the one He subdued are examples to give one pause in accepting the free will defense as legitimate.

Fifth, the positives given above are half-truths. Certainly, that which is forced is not love. However, no one has asked what "forcing" means! It was just left assumed, and the "free" will defense typically just assumes that forcing is anything that does not cohere with its own view of freedom. As has been seen, that view of freedom has some rather formidable obstacles to overcome. So, then why should its view of "forcing" be assumed when its view of "freedom" is under severe question?

I would propose a different way of understanding "freedom" than the libertarian kind. The libertarian kind is that a choice is only free if one has the undetermined/uncaused ability to choose between alternatives. Hence, any sort of determination or causation is viewed as "forcing". Some may not be aware of it, but there is at least another way of understanding "freedom" in relationship to "forcing". Some will hold that a choice is free if a person does what he most prefers or wants. If a person did what he wanted to do, then the action is considered to be free. On the other side, forcing is when someone is made to do something contrary to what they wanted. One key point, though, that must be observed, is that this view of choice and freedom is deterministic. One's will is determined by what he most wants or prefers. Ok, now please put this thought on hold for just one second.

The truth of the forcing scenario has been mentioned already. Forced love is not love (granted), but now the definition of "force" has been called into issue. What really is "forced" love? To help thinking about this issue, let's consider a room full of people. This may seem like a wild and total detour, but it is really hitting a key point at issue here.

We have a room. It is full of people. You and I are in this room. Here is the key question. Does anyone in the room need me or you in order to exist? This may very well seem like a really odd question given the discussion so far. The answer is really quite simple. No one in the room needs me to continue to exist. This is because we exist independently of each-other. If I forget about you or walk away never to return to the room, you and the others will still exist there. What I'm pointing out is the assumption of independence. But what in the world does this have to do with "forcing"? We're getting there.

Now consider the room again, but consider it in relationship to God. The Bible tells us that God upholds all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). In Christ, all created things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). God gives to men life, and breath, and everything (Acts 17:25). Ok, now that we can see God's relationship to His creation, let's ask the same question about God's relationship to the room. Does anyone in the room need God in order to exist? The verses just mentioned make the point that the situation is different. God's hand is always under-girding His creation from moment-to-moment. In short, and to the point at hand, God is always "causing" His creation to continue to exist. Hence, there is no room in God's universe for people who live independently of Him.

Now, let's go back to the issue of "forcing". If forcing is understood as determination or causation, then it is incompatible with God's regular sustaining hand. All is "forcing" in God's universe if the definition of "freedom" and "forcing" is taken from Plantinga's defense. Hence, that view of freedom and forcing receives yet another reason for one to pause and consider its merits. Maybe the other kind of freedom should be looked into a bit more.

Sixth, many assume that libertarian freedom is necessary for human responsibility to be maintained in relation to God. This point is going to get massively abbreviated. The point at issue is that uncaused, chance element of libertarian freedom. If one's decision is a chance event, then how does this support responsibility? Why is a person held culpable for a chance occurrence of the will?

 

[His clay]

(Part 4 of 4)

Seventh, the very appeal to libertarian freedom in the defense is an appeal to human autonomy; and autonomy begets autonomy. What is meant when saying that autonomy begets autonomy? The point that is being made is that a little autonomy from God creates absolute autonomy from God when dealing with a consistent skeptic. When one says that autonomy is needed in order to solve the problem of evil, then it creates a snowball that the skeptic will continue to push. What the theist intends as a means of getting God off the hook in reference to moral evil (evil perpetuated by moral agents), the atheist sees as an area where God is not needed, since man is independent of Him. The same can be said about "natural evil". Getting God off the hook for natural evil leads to a universe that is not dependent upon Him, so then why is He needed again? What this does is promote a "god-of-the-gaps" view of providence. The assumption is that either nature does it autonomously (independently), or God does it. And if a natural explanation is given, then God is not needed; and eventually the atheist (like Dawkins and others) will say that God is really not needed for anything. God is irrelevant, since everything is independent of Him. In short, granting a little autonomy begets complete autonomy from God. Atheism then results from what were originally, apparently good intentions. Namely, protecting God from incrimination.

Certainly, this is a slippery slope kind of argument. However, this slope has been evidenced in history, and I'll leave R. K. McGregor Wright's book, "No Place for Sovereignty: What's Wrong with Freewill Theism," to fill in the gaps there if one needs them filled.

Conclusion and Recommendation

While more points could be mentioned (the fall's relationship to this discussion, etc.), the points presented above should maybe give one some kind of pause in accepting the kind of defense given above. Personally, I tend to see it less as a defense and more as a suicide. God's goodness is undermined by the defense. God's knowledge is undermined in the defense. Christianity itself is undermined. Responsibility is destroyed. The slide toward atheism has begun. Half-truths are presented as the whole. The perfection of Jesus is undermined. The list could continue, so perhaps these may give one pause before endorsing that type of defense toward the problem of evil.

A recommendation is given in this and the final paragraph. Rather than assuming autonomy from God as a defense, I would suggest aiming the guns at autonomy itself as part of a better defense. The very problem of evil assumes "moral autonomy" in order to get off the ground. C. S. Lewis will be used to illustrate this point.

The early Christian preachers could assume in their hearers, whether Jews, Metuentes or Pagans, a sense of guilt. (That this was common among Pagans is shown by the fact that both Epicureanism and the Mystery Religions both claimed, though in different ways, to assuage it.) Thus the Christian message was in those days unmistakably the Evangelium, the Good News. It promised healing to those who knew they were sick. We have to convince our hearers of the unwelcome diagnosis before we can expect them to welcome the news of the remedy.

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.[2]

The tendency today is for people to assume that they are in the moral position as judge over god. There is a reason why "god" was not capitalized, for it is now referring to a straw man. A god that man is over is not the Christian God! Therefore, given that God is God; and I am not. Then the problem of evil massively reduces. We then approach God's reasons--not as His superior--but as mere babes. We should approach like little children. We should approach humbly. And it is the very posture in which the questions are asked that makes all the difference. The Psalms and other portions of Scripture are a great way of learning to voice concerns and questions to God in the right way.

I hope that this has better spelled out some of my concerns mentioned earlier in the day, and I hope that this is helpful as well. Please let me know your thoughts if you would like. As stated previously, I know that this has been somewhat one-sided, since there are some serious issues to deal with in my own view. Thank you for reading all this if you have done so.

========================

[1] Clive Staples Lewis, The Four Loves, (First Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1960), p. 83.

[2] Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 244.

 

[His clay]

I also posted this (see the 4 part post at the beginning of this thread) at CARM a long time ago. It was no longer visible when I searched for it at CARM. I'm posting this because the posting at CARM generated some good discussion. I also believe that posting this here will aid others to better understand some of the issues. At this juncture I would like to tag a few people who I think would provide good insight. @Arial @ReverendRV @Carbon @makesends @Josheb

I hope to see good contribution of thoughts. As always, if I perceive a troll, my inclination to dialogue with such a person is next to non-existent. I welcome valuable contribution, while ignoring trolling for the most part.

 

[Arial]

@His clay

Good posts and thought provoking. I think I have come to see all those things as to their conclusions, though not as closely observed as you have presented. And quite possible in the past and in places, stated my view in a wrong way, or at least not all together.

When one is coming out of the libertarian free will view---which as you say is full of half truths and scripture contradictions, and beginning a study of Reformed theology, the questions I call "unanswerable" are the very ones that rear their ugly head. And the ones used against Reformed theology. Is God then the author of evil? Are men sent to hell because God created them to go to hell and they have no chance? Can a person want to be saved and God refuses to let him in? Where did sin come from?

I say "unanswerable" 1. because there is much that God does not tell us and 2. because no matter what answer is given, it will not satisfy or convince the skeptic.

The answer we have and that is enough is God is God, and there is no other. God is sovereign over all His creation and He does as He pleases for His purpose. If we trust Him and believe Him, we accept what He says, those things He reveals to us. The problem is in the LF camp, Open Theology, Unitarianism and others, is that they want God to be anything but God. It is as Lewis says, and this is unfortunately true of a great portion of Christianity, man is the judge and God sits in the dock.

I especially liked your people in a room analogy as it was very clarifying. It should settle the matter once and for all, but it does not. The Scriptures you mentioned and 'we live and move and have our being in Him' are read and spoken, and familiar, but there are many minds and hearts they have not yet penetrated. If something exists independent of God, either He is not who He says He is, or there is another god (s), or some things that exist are self created.

And before someone asks, "Did God create the automobile?" I will direct their attention to Exodus 31:1-11.

 

[Arial]

@His clay

The entire argument for free will, be it LF will or otherwise, imo, is based entirely on a failure to see God for who He is, and what our relational position with Him is. It centers around the concept of mankind being free, when what he lost in Adam through the fall, was freedom. Also not recognized is the covenantal relationship that God has with all of creation, seen in Gen 1, and the one element of His creation, man, being created in His image and likeness. Mankind was placed as mediator of the covenant of creation. He must respond in obedience to the rule of God in ruling creation.

I have been reading a very good book, "As Far as the Curse is Found" by Michael D. Williams. I will let his words speak. "Humankind is free---free to obey. Man is not free to obey or disobey the Word of God as he pleases. Disobedience is never free for it always brings slavery. The creational freedom of the mediator is not the alleged freedom of modern autonomous choice. Gordon Spykman says 'By divine design we are never free to disobey. Obedience to God's word is the only open door to a liberated and liberating life.'* The responsive freedom of the human is also a responsible freedom. As the representatives of creation, human response to God affects all other creatures"

God needs no defenders. And fallen man is not free nor is his will.

* Gordon J, Spkyman Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm For Doing Dogmatics

 

[Carbon]

There is some really good and interesting stuff here @His clay
If you don't mind I would like to start with Jesus.

Strangely enough, Jesus never sinned, though He supposedly possessed libertarian freedom. Strangely, this amounts to a person flipping a coin for 33 years, and it always lands heads. Every flip of the coin would represent one "free" decision.

If it were anyone else, perhaps, and the chance of it landing on heads for more than 15-20 times in a roll would be a miracle.
The answer to why Jesus never sinned is simple.

For example.
Q- Why does God not lie?
A- Because He isn't a liar.

Q- Why dosent God steal?
A- Because God is not a thief.

Q- Why did Jesus not sin?
A- Because He is not a sinner.

God does not, cannot, go against His own nature.

 

[Carbon]

Some things do commend the argument to people. First, everyone readily agrees that forced love is not love at all. This matches human experience to a great degree. Just about everybody readily understands that (for example) a forced marriage is definitely going to have to overcome some obstacles. "Love" is going to be one of those. So, the argument readily coheres with what people generally experience.

This is one argument that many Arminians have thrown at me when talking about God's sovereignty and predestination. I have heard many times God won't force anyone to believe in Him or to love Him.
And I always agree with them.
"But God" saves us by grace, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2.
If they had a real understanding of grace, they would see (I think) how believing and loving God are not forced.
When we have been given a new heart, and have been crucified with Christ, and the old man has passed away, what is in the way at that time? Nothing. We have been sanctified, given the gift of faith (the new man in Christ possesses this faith).

This faith, and love, the new man in Christ possesses isn't forced.

 

[Carbon]

Sixth, many assume that libertarian freedom is necessary for human responsibility to be maintained in relation to God. This point is going to get massively abbreviated. The point at issue is that uncaused, chance element of libertarian freedom. If one's decision is a chance event, then how does this support responsibility? Why is a person held culpable for a chance occurrence of the will?

I personally believe we are living in a time of serious individualism. Everything is, "me" or "I" it's all about ourselves. I believe the world, the flesh, and the devil have done their part. Mankind has been catechized. We have been taught to rely on and depend on ourselves.
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matt 24.

 

[His clay]

There is some really good and interesting stuff here @His clay
If you don't mind I would like to start with Jesus.

If it were anyone else, perhaps, and the chance of it landing on heads for more than 15-20 times in a roll would be a miracle.
The answer to why Jesus never sinned is simple.

For example.
Q- Why does God not lie?
A- Because He isn't a liar.

Q- Why dosent God steal?
A- Because God is not a thief.

Q- Why did Jesus not sin?
A- Because He is not a sinner.

God does not, cannot, go against His own nature.

If the chance view of the will is wrong, and God's decisions are inextricably tied to his nature, then the libertarian idea of human freedom is simply mistaken. As stated before, the libertarian idea of human freedom needs (1) causal human or choice ultimacy, (2) the ability to do otherwise. If God's choices are not causally ultimate, rather, His nature directly impacts the decision making process, then He cannot do otherwise than His holy nature. This is a massive problem for libertarian freedom. But it is the most wonderful thing for true and genuine Christianity. This is precisely why we trust God, because His moral perfection cannot change! He cannot lie! Thus His promises are true and trustworthy because He cannot lie. Libertarian freedom lies in ruins.

I totally follow you Carbon. This is because we both understand the fact that one's nature determines one's choices. But for the libertarian freedom advocate, one creates his moral nature through his choices. One's nature comes after choice in the libertarian scheme, and this is because they have to preserve the idea of being able to do otherwise.

 

[makesends]

@His clay

The entire argument for free will, be it LF will or otherwise, imo, is based entirely on a failure to see God for who He is, and what our relational position with Him is. It centers around the concept of mankind being free, when what he lost in Adam through the fall, was freedom. Also not recognized is the covenantal relationship that God has with all of creation, seen in Gen 1, and the one element of His creation, man, being created in His image and likeness. Mankind was placed as mediator of the covenant of creation. He must respond in obedience to the rule of God in ruling creation.

I have been reading a very good book, "As Far as the Curse is Found" by Michael D. Williams. I will let his words speak. "Humankind is free---free to obey. Man is not free to obey or disobey the Word of God as he pleases. Disobedience is never free for it always brings slavery. The creational freedom of the mediator is not the alleged freedom of modern autonomous choice. Gordon Spykman says 'By divine design we are never free to disobey. Obedience to God's word is the only open door to a liberated and liberating life.'* The responsive freedom of the human is also a responsible freedom. As the representatives of creation, human response to God affects all other creatures"

God needs no defenders. And fallen man is not free nor is his will.

* Gordon J, Spkyman Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm For Doing Dogmatics

I have highlighted a point above I wish to comment on. More than once I have replied with words like, "Yes, but it is worse than that."

Total depravity is of such a nature that even the good deeds of a man —let's even go to the ultimate good deed: To "Accept Jesus as Savior"— are full of evil, in the unregenerate. There is no obedience, there is no submission, there is no virtue apart from God working it in the 'moral agent'. Thus, it can be shown, I think, that there is no independence from God in any virtue.

Granted, that is a very truncated version of how the argument lays out, jumping logical steps, but I wanted to mention it to provoke thought concerning the notion of the independence of man's will.

 

[Arial]

Total depravity is of such a nature that even the good deeds of a man —let's even go to the ultimate good deed: To "Accept Jesus as Savior"— are full of evil, in the unregenerate. There is no obedience, there is no submission, there is no virtue apart from God working it in the 'moral agent'. Thus, it can be shown, I think, that there is no independence from God in any virtue.

Granted, that is a very truncated version of how the argument lays out, jumping logical steps, but I wanted to mention it to provoke thought concerning the notion of the independence of man's will.

I agree. Of course LF does not acknowledge total depravity, and in some cases one does acknowledge it and says that the cross provided enough grace for all in order to make a decision of whether or not to be saved (accept Jesus). In either case, however, total depravity is not understood. The relationship between God and man is off kilter.The vast chasm between God and man, and especially fallen man, that only God can bridge, is not recognized. There is a sense in which LF considers God and man equals or almost equals, with God merely being a benefactor.

There is no independence from God in any virtue since He created us to be moral (conforming to His standards and knowing right from wrong, bearing His image and likeness.) And this is not an option. All creation obeys Him---animals by instinct, the heavenly bodies by His established order, vegetation and sea creatures according to what He established when creating them seen in the creation story. Man by reason, and having been given dominion to rule and care for those things on the earth, is a moral agent. But he is not free to disobey and he is in bondage to sin.

Man did not lose this capacity to reason and rule in the fall. He can still exhibit virtues but not only virtues. And those virtues he exhibits are every last one polluted and corrupted by sin. In the unregenerate they have nothing to do with submission to God, but are self motivated. To offer our own good deeds to God in hopes of being accepted by Him into His kingdom, is akin to offering strange fire, or a "layman" entering the holy of holies, in the old covenant.

Our righteous acts only become righteous when we are placed in Christ who is our High Priest, because He has washed us of all unrighteousness, not outwardly but inwardly, and His righteousness has justified us before our Creator. So to say that man is ever a free agent independent of God, and who operates independent of Him, able to be righteous enough to choose Christ, is the height of arrogance against God. And to say if LF is the only way in which man can be responsible for his sin, is doubly ludicrous.

 

[His clay]

This is one argument that many Arminians have thrown at me when talking about God's sovereignty and predestination. I have heard many times God won't force anyone to believe in Him or to love Him.
And I always agree with them.
"But God" saves us by grace, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2.
If they had a real understanding of grace, they would see (I think) how believing and loving God are not forced.
When we have been given a new heart, and have been crucified with Christ, and the old man has passed away, what is in the way at that time? Nothing. We have been sanctified, given the gift of faith (the new man in Christ possesses this faith).

This faith, and love, the new man in Christ possesses isn't forced.

God makes the unwilling to be willing by imparting a new nature. It is much like a change of mind. Whereas once the sinner saw the things of Christ and God as odious, but then God works in such a way so as to make Jesus glorious, and faith and repentance follow. There is no arm twisting.

However, the Holy Spirit may weigh heavy on a person's heart for some time. The person's conscience may be pricked for an extended period. My dad's testimony is much to this effect. Where he knew that he needed to repent of his sin and trust in Christ, but my dad wanted to do his own thing. But God kept pushing, for years, and eventually one day the pressure effectively worked and my dad could do nothing other than come to Christ. That is my dad's testimony.

However, when a Calvinist speaks of God making the unwilling to be willing, it may be over and extended period of time like my dad, or it may be a shorter time, where God takes His word and powerfully works in a person's heart, and the person has a change of mind regarding what used to appear bad, and now it appears good, and faith and repentance follow.

What do you think?

 

[His clay]

I personally believe we are living in a time of serious individualism. Everything is, "me" or "I" it's all about ourselves. I believe the world, the flesh, and the devil have done their part. Mankind has been catechized. We have been taught to rely on and depend on ourselves.
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matt 24.

This comment (I think) hits the nail on the head. The narcissistic paradigm relegates all things to the starting point of self. Individualism is a nicer way to say it, but it is sinful selfishness and pride. Yes, the world and the devil are there too. Yes, self-reliance is somewhat commendable in the transition from the teen years to adulthood, but with respect to God self-reliance is simply fallen thinking. It is the failure of our need to see the Great Physician, and Jesus did not come to save the healthy, but rather those who are desperately in need of Him. The most common stiff arm of the unsaved is the pride of self-reliance and the desire to be autonomous over one's life, but God is God. God's deity is not going to change, and so people can gripe, whine, badmouth, and rail against God. But it will accomplish nothing from God's standpoint. As Psalm 2 points out, God sits up in the heavens and laughs at such people.

 

[His clay]

@His clay

The entire argument for free will, be it LF will or otherwise, imo, is based entirely on a failure to see God for who He is, and what our relational position with Him is. It centers around the concept of mankind being free, when what he lost in Adam through the fall, was freedom. Also not recognized is the covenantal relationship that God has with all of creation, seen in Gen 1, and the one element of His creation, man, being created in His image and likeness. Mankind was placed as mediator of the covenant of creation. He must respond in obedience to the rule of God in ruling creation.

I have been reading a very good book, "As Far as the Curse is Found" by Michael D. Williams. I will let his words speak. "Humankind is free---free to obey. Man is not free to obey or disobey the Word of God as he pleases. Disobedience is never free for it always brings slavery. The creational freedom of the mediator is not the alleged freedom of modern autonomous choice. Gordon Spykman says 'By divine design we are never free to disobey. Obedience to God's word is the only open door to a liberated and liberating life.'* The responsive freedom of the human is also a responsible freedom. As the representatives of creation, human response to God affects all other creatures"

God needs no defenders. And fallen man is not free nor is his will.

* Gordon J, Spkyman Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm For Doing Dogmatics

Your first paragraph is exactly why I wrote a thread dealing with the Creator/creature distinction.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-creator-creature-distinction.1290/

Your second paragraph brings up a quote. The quote looks to be focused upon the issue of our moral obligation before God. We are not free to make up the rules of morality as if we were deity. Hence, we are not free to disobey; the only freedom available to us is obedience (i.e. living in conformity with God's standard/obligations for us). So either we are submitted to God; or we are in bondage to sin.

However, it is the atheistic/secular mentality of this age to see one's self as god over one's life. This is why people can say that gender is malleable to one's person's preference. Why? Because the person is seen as a deity over their own life. Since God is absent from their minds in any kind of submissive way, then they are free to be their own creator, to make themselves to be what they way. The creator and creatures roles have swapped in the person's mind. This is why women feel free to murder the unborn, because it gets in the way of their career, pursuit of pleasure, and social promotion. The child is an inconvenience to the person's self-centered pursuit. And again, assuming the role of creator, the child is stripped of its person-hood and trampled over. And this is what happens to most all sins, the person reasons that they know what is best, and their idea of god is just a kill-joy who wants people to live miserably. They view themselves as better and more evolved that archaic religious nonsense. The age of this secular culture, having ignored and reinvented god, people see themselves as gods over their own lives. And this is what I think that makes Calvinism so odious to others. God is really God, and this fact really smacks against the self-deification of many.

My thread over the Creator/creature distinction had a section over the connection to Gnosticism. I have found Eric Voegelin's little book one of the most insightful reads in this direction. It is short, but packed, and somewhat difficult to read. But the insight there is easily worth the price of the book: "Science, Politics, and Gnosticism".

 

[Arial]

However, it is the atheistic/secular mentality of this age to see one's self as god over one's life. This is why people can say that gender is malleable to one's person's preference. Why? Because the person is seen as a deity over their own life. Since God is absent from their minds in any kind of submissive way, then they are free to be their own creator, to make themselves to be what they way. The creator and creatures roles have swapped in the person's mind. This is why women feel free to murder the unborn, because it gets in the way of their career, pursuit of pleasure, and social promotion. The child is an inconvenience to the person's self-centered pursuit. And again, assuming the role of creator, the child is stripped of its person-hood and trampled over. And this is what happens to most all sins, the person reasons that they know what is best, and their idea of god is just a kill-joy who wants people to live miserably. They view themselves as better and more evolved that archaic religious nonsense. The age of this secular culture, having ignored and reinvented god, people see themselves as gods over their own lives. And this is what I think that makes Calvinism so odious to others. God is really God, and this fact really smacks against the self-deification of many.

And why when someone refers to God as he, add or "she." Or refer to the Universe as wanting this or that or destining this or that. Or mother nature. It is the very condition of the fall, the very result of this rebellion against our Maker. Our very total depravity. And it is being brought into so called Christian churches full scale and unrecognized for what it is, with the free will of choice to obey or not to obey. Which I consider simply adding the name of Jesus to our falleness and calling it good enough--even good. But it is not submitting to God. It is really very very sad, even frightening, the thing that makes me want to take up my sword and shield. The very best that can be said about it, and that is not all that good, is that some are saved (God does the heart changing after all) but are building on the foundation with straw and wood that will be burned up.

 

[Carbon]

God makes the unwilling to be willing by imparting a new nature. It is much like a change of mind. Whereas once the sinner saw the things of Christ and God as odious, but then God works in such a way so as to make Jesus glorious, and faith and repentance follow. There is no arm twisting.

Amen!

However, the Holy Spirit may weigh heavy on a person's heart for some time. The person's conscience may be pricked for an extended period. My dad's testimony is much to this effect. Where he knew that he needed to repent of his sin and trust in Christ, but my dad wanted to do his own thing. But God kept pushing, for years, and eventually one day the pressure effectively worked and my dad could do nothing other than come to Christ. That is my dad's testimony.

If you don't mind me saying, there was a purpose behind the time period. This is God's secret council and was probably a means God used in a way we do not know to bring another elect to Christ. I believe things happen for a purpose.

However, when a Calvinist speaks of God making the unwilling to be willing, it may be over and extended period of time like my dad,

Sure, why not?

or it may be a shorter time, where God takes His word and powerfully works in a person's heart, and the person has a change of mind regarding what used to appear bad, and now it appears good, and faith and repentance follow.

Amen.

What do you think?

I agree.

It's all for the glory of Christ. God, through divine providence, works in ways we wouldn't even notice even when it's done before our very eyes.

And to think, And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28.

 

[Carbon]

This comment (I think) hits the nail on the head. The narcissistic paradigm relegates all things to the starting point of self.

Indeed.

Individualism is a nicer way to say it, but it is sinful selfishness and pride.

I agree.

Yes, the world and the devil are there too.

Yes, and they offer all the things the flesh loves.

Yes, self-reliance is somewhat commendable in the transition from the teen years to adulthood, but with respect to God self-reliance is simply fallen thinking.

Amen.

It is the failure of our need to see the Great Physician, and Jesus did not come to save the healthy, but rather those who are desperately in need of Him.

Yes, and these he came to save, "he saved." He didn't hope to or try to save them, he saved them.

The most common stiff arm of the unsaved is the pride of self-reliance and the desire to be autonomous over one's life, but God is God. God's deity is not going to change, and so people can gripe, whine, badmouth, and rail against God. But it will accomplish nothing from God's standpoint. As Psalm 2 points out, God sits up in the heavens and laughs at such people.

Yes, and the nations have been given him as his inheritance. Satan has been bound Rev 20:3.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Psalm 2:8.

I just thought I'd throw that in there.

 

[Carbon]

And why when someone refers to God as he, add or "she." Or refer to the Universe as wanting this or that or destining this or that. Or mother nature. It is the very condition of the fall, the very result of this rebellion against our Maker. Our very total depravity. And it is being brought into so called Christian churches full scale and unrecognized for what it is, with the free will of choice to obey or not to obey. Which I consider simply adding the name of Jesus to our falleness and calling it good enough--even good. But it is not submitting to God. It is really very very sad, even frightening, the thing that makes me want to take up my sword and shield. The very best that can be said about it, and that is not all that good, is that some are saved (God does the heart changing after all) but are building on the foundation with straw and wood that will be burned up.

The world has affected our churches, even many genuine believers. Free will (individualism) is the idol. It is an easy idol for the devil to use. My heart jumped for joy when I read, that this makes you want to take up your sword and shield. And isn't that what we must do? All believers. It's a battle for the mind. I have even heard Christians say, that the gospel is only for those outside the church to get lost sinners, not for in the church. I believe that is one of the biggest lies of the devil. I believe myself and every other believer needs to hear the gospel all the time.
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 2 Peter 1.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Romans 12:1.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:12.

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Eph 5:26.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matt 4:4.