[...] completely pigeon hole Libertarian Free Will so that they can tackle it. They say things like “Libertarians believe that Free Will is the power of contrary choice” then easily dismantle that position by showing that sometimes we can’t make another [...]

There’s free will in the things below, but not the things Above.

God calls and chooses us. This is ALL OVER the Bible.

Matthew,

You have it right.

Is it possible to have a biblically sound position that maintains savation is predestined, while free will functions simultaneously in all other aspects of life? This is the position I currently hold, but I get so lost in the implications that I’m not sure it’s even biblical, or possible. Anyone can chime in cause I’m lost.

[...] 5. Calvinism is not a denial of freedom. Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibilists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.) [...]

[...] Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibalists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.) [...]

If we’re comparing apples to apples (scripture to scripture) we come to a disturbing scenario. 2 Peter 3:9 says that “it is not God’s will that any man should perish.” He has the power to make this will possible. Yet we also know from Romans/Paul that He has in fact hardened people in the past for what reasons seemed good to Him as “vessels of wrath” (if we’re following Paul’s argument correctly and as inerrant–which I have reason to doubt). So then, we have God who has all-power to perform what is explicitly stated as his will (save all men) choosing against his own will (destroying Pharaoh, hating Esau). Fine. But Calvinism would go on to say that ALL the lost are basically the “unelected” (to put it bluntly NOT chosen for salvation). But this would put God in the position of CONSTANTLY choosing against his express will. That seems very suspect to me; nevertheless, far be it from me to understand the mind of God. However, isn’t it more coherent that there is an alternative explanation and that is simply that if 2 Peter 3:9 is God’s will and yet many still perish…there exists the possibility that man’s will can thwart God’s EVEN AS God intervenes to harden some (but not EVERY single person that perishes)? It’s the only reasonable view. Why must God either elect or harden? He is certainly free to do both (as he told Moses and as Paul illustrates) but it doesn’t necessarily follow that this kind of direct intervention is ALWAYS what happens (vs. indirectly where will can act, e.g.) …otherwise you have God inflicting pain to his own self by always causing the thing he MOSTS wants to avoid–man perishing. And though the divine mind may have his very good reasons to directly harden a few (which is still perplexing but obviously within his right and power) it doesn’t match his character and express wishes (again, 2 Pet 3:9) for him to do this ad nauseum, even for all time, for all persons who choose against him (perish), in my view.

Ack!

Mis-posted: #66 should have been under: “Warning: Too Much Information May Destroy Your Faith.”

Forthwith.

Michael, great blog. Engaging buoyant style. Interlaced optimism and criticism. Fair nods to your critics. Nice touch.

You wrote – “I don’t believe that too much information can destroy the Christian faith …. Christianity does not need to fear the rise of information, but to learn with it, integrate it, and to teach people how to process their faith (and on).”

I agree. At least with this verbal formulae. Your nod to cognitive dissonance plays to factual/empirical questions about how and whether believers really do (or do not) integrate new information into existing convictions.

My comment here (next) is not adversarial. Nor argumentative. It’s descriptive.

Empirical/clinical studies of active, practicing, confessing Calvinists (just one e.g.; could apply to Arminians too) reveal no correlation (no effect) between theological conviction/confession and real-life attribution to God’s action. Theological convictions (i.e., for Calvinists, God’s sovereignty) which should commit Calvinists to assert God’s direct control in real life attributions are simply not upheld. A slew of studies upholds the trajectory of such findings (for one e.g., see Miner, M. H. and McKnight, J. (1999). Religious Attributions: Situational Factors and Effects on Coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(2), 274-287).

I’d suggest the reasons for this failure of the “integration”of life into theology are as numerous as the purposes of Ecclesiastes 3 multiplied to their own power. On orders of magnitude. There is no single reason.

But again, cognitive dissonance is a factual matter. Not a theoretical nor theological one.

The father in your hypothetical above may not be making any strategic move at all. Nor even responding. Merely exhibiting the already-existing internal state of the non-sequitur between theology and real life.

Cheers,

Jim

[...] Parchment and Pen » A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will” [...]