What is Compatibilism?

Sketo

Active member

Compatibilism is the belief that God's predetermination is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices that occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). Our choices are also determined by our greatest inclinations. Compatibilism affirms that we make choices for a reason, that the will is not independent of the person and we will always choose what we want (Deut 30:16,17,19; Matt 17:12; James 1:14). It means God has granted us the ability to act freely (that is, voluntarily without coercion), but not independent from God nor free from our desires, but to act according to our desires and nature. In other words, voluntary choice (to chose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism. The Scripture itself testifies that


“…no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. (Luke 6:42-45)

Figtrees, of necessity, grow figs, not thorns. According to Jesus, then, nature produces a necessary result or fruit at the exclusion of something else. One cannot produce a result that is contrary to nature. While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional!

by John W. Hendryx
 

Kampioen

Member

Compatibilism is the belief that God's predetermination is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices that occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). Our choices are also determined by our greatest inclinations. Compatibilism affirms that we make choices for a reason, that the will is not independent of the person and we will always choose what we want (Deut 30:16,17,19; Matt 17:12; James 1:14). It means God has granted us the ability to act freely (that is, voluntarily without coercion), but not independent from God nor free from our desires, but to act according to our desires and nature. In other words, voluntary choice (to chose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism. The Scripture itself testifies that


“…no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. (Luke 6:42-45)

Figtrees, of necessity, grow figs, not thorns. According to Jesus, then, nature produces a necessary result or fruit at the exclusion of something else. One cannot produce a result that is contrary to nature. While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional!

by John W. Hendryx
In other words our choices are determined by the equivalence of a preset domino effect?
 

TomFL

Well-known member

Compatibilism is the belief that God's predetermination is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices that occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). Our choices are also determined by our greatest inclinations. Compatibilism affirms that we make choices for a reason, that the will is not independent of the person and we will always choose what we want (Deut 30:16,17,19; Matt 17:12; James 1:14). It means God has granted us the ability to act freely (that is, voluntarily without coercion), but not independent from God nor free from our desires, but to act according to our desires and nature. In other words, voluntary choice (to chose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism. The Scripture itself testifies that


“…no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. (Luke 6:42-45)

Figtrees, of necessity, grow figs, not thorns. According to Jesus, then, nature produces a necessary result or fruit at the exclusion of something else. One cannot produce a result that is contrary to nature. While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional!

by John W. Hendryx

Compatibilism is the belief that God's predetermination is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices that occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). Our choices are also determined by our greatest inclinations. Compatibilism affirms that we make choices for a reason, that the will is not independent of the person and we will always choose what we want (Deut 30:16,17,19; Matt 17:12; James 1:14). It means God has granted us the ability to act freely (that is, voluntarily without coercion), but not independent from God nor free from our desires, but to act according to our desires and nature. In other words, voluntary choice (to chose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism. The Scripture itself testifies that


“…no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. (Luke 6:42-45)

Figtrees, of necessity, grow figs, not thorns. According to Jesus, then, nature produces a necessary result or fruit at the exclusion of something else. One cannot produce a result that is contrary to nature. While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional!

by John W. Hendryx
What is not mentioned

In order to understand this better theologians have come up with the term "compatibilism" to describe the concurrence of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11).
In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. Monergism.com How can God be sovereign and man free

In other words man does what he wants but what he wants has been determined by God

According to the bible however our evil desires are not from God

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
James 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
James 1:16 ¶ Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

1Cor. 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Job 34:10 ¶ “Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
Job 34:11 For according to the work of a man he will repay him,
and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
Job 34:12 Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,
and the Almighty will not pervert justice.

1John 2:16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life3—is not from the Father but is from the world.
 

TomFL

Well-known member

Compatibilism is the belief that God's predetermination is "compatible" with voluntary choice.

With that said, I would like to offer a simple explanation as to why I reject some of the philosophical speculations being popularized today. For the sake of brevity, I want to focus this post specifically on my ever-growing doubts about the philosophical view call “compatibilism” (a view most often held to by Calvinistic believers). This view claims that one can affirm free will (as they define it) and divine determinism, as these two are considered “compatible” according to the claims of this perspective.



Compatibilists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the sense that they are “doing what they desire.” However, this appears to be an insufficient explanation to maintain any sense of true freedom considering that compatibilists also affirm that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God. (i.e. WCF: “God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass.”)

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires (i.e. “voluntary”). Given the long-held Calvinistic belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God’s decree on which human freedom might be based.

Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God’s desire in the matter (i.e., God’s desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God’s decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist’s argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When you define freedom in terms of ‘doing what one wants to do’, it initially appears plausible only because it subtly evokes a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices.

But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God’s decree.

For this reason, I feel human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the autonomy of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

Some compatibilists, such as John Hendryx on monergism.com, do not refute these arguments, but simply embrace them by admitting that compatibilism is “no less deterministic than hard determinism.” And compatibilism “simply means that God’s predetermination and meticulous providence is ‘compatible’ with voluntary choice.” In other words, he is virtually saying “Mankind is doing what they want and what they want is determined by God, so get over it,
https://soteriology101.com/2014/12/01/why-the-theory-of-compatibilism-falls-short/ God and can do whatever He wants!”
 

ReverendRV

Active member
With that said, I would like to offer a simple explanation as to why I reject some of the philosophical speculations being popularized today. For the sake of brevity, I want to focus this post specifically on my ever-growing doubts about the philosophical view call “compatibilism” (a view most often held to by Calvinistic believers). This view claims that one can affirm free will (as they define it) and divine determinism, as these two are considered “compatible” according to the claims of this perspective.



Compatibilists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the sense that they are “doing what they desire.” However, this appears to be an insufficient explanation to maintain any sense of true freedom considering that compatibilists also affirm that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God. (i.e. WCF: “God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass.”)

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires (i.e. “voluntary”). Given the long-held Calvinistic belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God’s decree on which human freedom might be based.

Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God’s desire in the matter (i.e., God’s desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God’s decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist’s argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When you define freedom in terms of ‘doing what one wants to do’, it initially appears plausible only because it subtly evokes a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices.

But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God’s decree.

For this reason, I feel human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the autonomy of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

Some compatibilists, such as John Hendryx on monergism.com, do not refute these arguments, but simply embrace them by admitting that compatibilism is “no less deterministic than hard determinism.” And compatibilism “simply means that God’s predetermination and meticulous providence is ‘compatible’ with voluntary choice.” In other words, he is virtually saying “Mankind is doing what they want and what they want is determined by God, so get over it,
https://soteriology101.com/2014/12/01/why-the-theory-of-compatibilism-falls-short/ God and can do whatever He wants!”
It is obvious that you have a very good understanding of Compatibalism; but none of us have perfect understanding. Since I often use the Compatibalism seen in Jesus Christ himself to prove Compatibalism, perhaps you can use it to disprove Compatibalism. "How??". Was Jesus Christ Peccable or Impeccable? I tend to believe he was Peccable, but I don't know of any Calvinists here who would say Jesus was Peccable. At the end of the Day, I say Jesus was Impeccable because he was preserved by God in several ways, not because his Human Nature was Impeccable. In his youth, Jesus was kept alive by moving to Egypt; his humanity was certainly Peccable since he died. Now since I have gotten that out of the way, while in the Garden, Jesus prayed 'take this Cup from me; but not my Will be done and yours be done'. Christ's Human Will flowed Concurrently with his Divine Will, without Mixing; but like I said, at the end of the day the Divine Will won out. So the Moral of the story is that you are right; at the end of the day Soft Determinism is actually Hard Determinism even in the person of Jesus Christ. ~ Since Calvinists say Jesus was Impeccable in part because God preserved him in ways like ministering to him in the desert with Angels, tell them that God went the extra mile to make 'the' difference in the Perseverance of the Lord, when Jesus just might have wanted to quit; IE freely choosing to go against the Will of God. But to not misrepresent Calvinists, they say Jesus was Impeccable due to his Divinity; but that goes against the Chalcedonian Creed which says that neither of Christ's Natures dominated the other, but that they were of One accord...

BUT; since you are right, Determinism is True. And since you are right, I bet you agree that no violence was offered to the Will of the Creature Jesus Christ, but the Liberty of his Will was established. The only violence that was offered to the Will of Jesus came from his own Sinless, Peccable, Adamic Humanity; which sweated blood as a result of the pressure of the incident. But if you would say that Jesus was Impeccable due to God preserving him during the Garden Incident, then Free Will isn't true; because when your Will wants something so much so that you sweat blood for the sake of it, how can there be such a thing as Liberty of the Will because 'who can resist him/God?'. If Jesus sweated blood because of pressure from God, then violence is offered to the Will; but what would that say about the Liberty of YOUR Will?
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Active member
Impeccable Salvation ~ by Reverend RV

Hebrews 2:18 ESV; For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

This verse is speaking of Jesus Christ. Here we learn much about what Temptation is; and what it isn’t. The Bible tells us that Jesus lived a life without Sinning; so automatically we learn that being Tempted is not a Sin in and of itself. You say, “But that’s Jesus, he couldn’t Sin because he’s God.” ~ There is a debate within the Church as to whether or not Jesus could have Sinned; whether he was Peccable (vulnerable to Sin) or Impeccable (invulnerable to Sin). One reason Christians argue this point is because of the Chalcedonian Creed; it confesses that Jesus is %100 God and %100 Man but One person, and that this Union is achieved without mixing the Natures of God and Man. Since Christ’s nature is unmixed, is his Humanity Peccable? ~ There isn’t enough room here to defend one view over the other but I will say I believe that Jesus was Peccable like Adam and Eve were; they fell into Sin. Because of this, the whole world also fell with them; we are now even more Peccable than they were. Have you ever told a Lie? See how much easier it is for us to Sin? ~ You object, “Then how in the world did Jesus NOT Sin??”

The devil might say that Jesus had an unfair advantage since the Bible tells us Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit more than anyone else. Also, God made a Covenant before the foundation of the world that he would Save his people. Another reason is because of God’s very own Providence. ~ But wouldn’t you say that this is fair because Jesus suppressed the expression of his Divinity in order to live on the level of An Unfallen Adam? Jesus Christ is called the Second Adam for a reason; he is our Second Chance! Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people because all sinned. By the trespass of the first man, death reigned through that man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of Grace and the gift of Righteousness rule in life through the second man! Receive the gift of Righteousness by having Faith in the resurrected Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Repent of Sin and find a Church that Loves the Bible; one that will teach that your Eternal Security is Impeccable…

Should you be worried that you can lose your Salvation? Yes and no; Christians also debate about this. There are verses that seem to teach that we should beware, but there are verses that comfort us when it comes to being Eternally Secure. I support the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (POTS); this is believed by many Evangelicals. It teaches both sides of the coin when it comes to being Secure or not; IE Compatibility. ~ But ultimately I side with Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS); because like Peccability versus Impeccability, there are other things that tip the scales. Jesus said that he would lose NONE of his people; that’s good enough for me. Your Salvation is Impeccable because your Savior is Impeccable. Confess Christ as Lord and you will be Forgiven…

John 3:16 KJV; For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
 

Sketo

Active member
Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)...

In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This voluntary of evil act is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that beings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph's brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure.

We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will. Those who believe man has a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called "inconsistent". Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor seperately from God's meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, a choice without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most according to our disposition and inclinations. The former view (libertarianism) is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (the fallen will is never free from the bondage of our corrupt nature, and and not free, in any sense, from God's eternal decree.) The reason I emphasize this is that compatibilists are often misrepresented by hard determinists at this point. They are somehow confused with inconsistent Calvinists. When compatibilists use such phrases as "compatibilistic freedom", they are, more often than not, using it to mean 'voluntary' choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God's decree or absolute sovereignty (an impossible supposition).

In biblical terminology, fallen man is in bondage to a corruption of nature and that is why the biblical writers considered him not free (see Rom 6). Jesus Himself affirms that the one who sins is a "slave to sin" and only the Son can set him free. Note that even Jesus speaks of a kind of freedom here. He is not speaking of freedom from God but freedom from the bondage of sin, which is the kind of freedom those have who are in Christ. In this sense God is the most free Person since He is holy, set apart from sin... yet He cannot make choices contrary to His essence, i.e. He cannot be unholy. So, we must conclude, according to Jesus in John 8:31-36, that the natural man does not have a free will. The will is in bondage to sin. Any consistent theologian who uses the term "freedom" usually is referring to that fact that while God sovereignly ordains all that comes to pass, yet man's "free choice" (voluntary) is compatible with God's sovereign decree. In other words the will is free from external coercion but not free from necessity. In my reckoning, there is no biblical warrant to use the phrase "free will", since the Bible never affirms or uses this term. So when some theologians use the word "free" they may be misusing or importing philosophical language from outside the Bible, but I think anyone who is consistent with the Text means "voluntary" when they say "free", but NEVER affirm they are free from God in any sense. For to affirm that God sovereignly brings our choices to pass and then also say man is free FROM GOD, is self-contradictory. So I repeat, many of those whom I read seem equate the word freedom with the meaning "voluntary". If any mean "free from God" they are confused. I heard R.C. Sproul say there are "no maverick molecules". Nothing happens by chance, but all falls within God's meticulous providence, no exceptions.

One of the best statements on compatibilism is one found from John Calvin:

"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70

p.s. prior to the fall, Adam's will was not in bondage to sin, thus it was free from sin's bondage and corruption but it was not free from God's decree. His choice to rebel was completely voluntary even though God has ordained with certainty that it would come to pass. He was not yet sealed in righteousness even though his inclination was toward the good. Through Satans devices, that he overcame his own good inclination and chose evil makes original sin all the more heinous.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
It is obvious that you have a very good understanding of Compatibalism; but none of us have perfect understanding. Since I often use the Compatibalism seen in Jesus Christ himself to prove Compatibalism, perhaps you can use it to disprove Compatibalism. "How??". Was Jesus Christ Peccable or Impeccable? I tend to believe he was Peccable, but I don't know of any Calvinists here who would say Jesus was Peccable.

You are right not many Calvinists would agree with you


At the end of the Day, I say Jesus was Impeccable because he was preserved by God in several ways, not because his Human Nature was Impeccable.
Walking down both sides of the street at the same time ?





In his youth, Jesus was kept alive by moving to Egypt; his humanity was certainly Peccable since he died. Now since I have gotten that out of the way, while in the Garden, Jesus prayed 'take this Cup from me; but not my Will be done and yours be done'. Christ's Human Will flowed Concurrently with his Divine Will, without Mixing; but like I said, at the end of the day the Divine Will won out. So the Moral of the story is that you are right; at the end of the day Soft Determinism is actually Hard Determinism even in the person of Jesus Christ. ~ Since Calvinists say Jesus was Impeccable in part because God preserved him in ways like ministering to him in the desert with Angels, tell them that God went the extra mile to make 'the' difference in the Perseverance of the Lord, when Jesus just might have wanted to quit; IE freely choosing to go against the Will of God. But to not misrepresent Calvinists, they say Jesus was Impeccable due to his Divinity; but that goes against the Chalcedonian Creed which says that neither of Christ's Natures dominated the other, but that they were of One accord...

BUT; since you are right, Determinism is True. And since you are right, I bet you agree that no violence was offered to the Will of the Creature Jesus Christ, but the Liberty of his Will was established.
It seems to me your problem is Christ was not determined but freely chose to do the Father will

There is no violence done to the will when the creature freely determines for himself and is not compelled by an external source
 

ReverendRV

Active member
You are right not many Calvinists would agree with you

Walking down both sides of the street at the same time ?

There is no violence done to the will when the creature freely determines for himself and is not compelled by an external source
You know me :)

Now We're getting somewhere...


There was no violence offered to the Will of the Creature Jesus of Nazareth; and there is no violence offered to the Will of the Creature Tom nor the Creature Charlie. As I often say, I probably need to let this germinate within you for a while. As always, I have such a great time talking to you...
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Our choices have been determined by God !Prov 16 1

The preparations of the heart in man,
and the answer of the tongue
, is from the Lord.

Prov 19 21

There are many devices in a man’s heart;
nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand.

Jer 10 23

O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself:
it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Prov 16 9

A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.
 

ReverendRV

Active member
What is not mentioned

In order to understand this better theologians have come up with the term "compatibilism" to describe the concurrence of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11).
In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. Monergism.com How can God be sovereign and man free

In other words man does what he wants but what he wants has been determined by God

According to the bible however our evil desires are not from God

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
James 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
James 1:16 ¶ Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

1Cor. 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Job 34:10 ¶ “Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
Job 34:11 For according to the work of a man he will repay him,
and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
Job 34:12 Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,
and the Almighty will not pervert justice.

1John 2:16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life3—is not from the Father but is from the world.
Like I said, you understand Compatibalism very well. You deserve to faithfully know that you are right about Provisionalism, because you DO understand it and us so much. There should be no Evangelical here who would ever say that your Provisionalist's perspective results in you being a Lost Soul; that's Hyper. I know that Professor Flowers would never say a Born Again Calvinist is outside of Christ. So we are brethren, and if you found a Calvinist who has equal reason to faithfully KNOW they are right about Reformed Theology; perhaps the two of you can traipse off to other CARM Boards like the Secular Atheism Board or the Mormonism Board, and together blow people out of the water...

That is, by the Grace of God of course; and for the increase of his Kingdom, his Honor and his Glory...
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Our choices have been determined by God !Prov 16 1

The preparations of the heart in man,
and the answer of the tongue
, is from the Lord.

Prov 19 21

There are many devices in a man’s heart;
nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand.

Jer 10 23

O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself:
it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Prov 16 9

A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.
If a man's heart deviseth his way then it is not God determining what is in man's heart

this actually mitigates against a divine meticulous determination of all things

Same thing devices in a man's heart

It is not from God

and as for

Jer. 10:23–25 —ESV
Ҧ I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
Correct me, O LORD, but in justice; not in your anger, lest you bring me to nothing.
¶ Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not, and on the peoples that call not on your name, for they have devoured Jacob;”

Why would the psalmist need correction if the Lord directed all his steps

Why pours out his wrath on the nations if God was directing their steps

all these verses recognize the sovereignty of God without affirming divine meticulous determination of all things
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Like I said, you understand Compatibalism very well. You deserve to faithfully know that you are right about Provisionalism, because you DO understand it and us so much. There should be no Evangelical here who would ever say that your Provisionalist's perspective results in you being a Lost Soul; that's Hyper. I know that Professor Flowers would never say a Born Again Calvinist is outside of Christ. So we are brethren, and if you found a Calvinist who has equal reason to faithfully KNOW they are right about Reformed Theology; perhaps the two of you can traipse off to other CARM Boards like the Secular Atheism Board or the Mormonism Board, and together blow people out of the water...

That is, by the Grace of God of course; and for the increase of his Kingdom, his Honor and his Glory...
Thank you for the affirmation I also affirm you and other Calvinists as brothers
 

TomFL

Well-known member
You know me :)

Now We're getting somewhere...


There was no violence offered to the Will of the Creature Jesus of Nazareth; and there is no violence offered to the Will of the Creature Tom nor the Creature Charlie. As I often say, I probably need to let this germinate within you for a while. As always, I have such a great time talking to you...
Ok

But that is only true if ones desires have not been determined
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
If a man's heart deviseth his way then it is not God determining what is in man's heart

this actually mitigates against a divine meticulous determination of all things

Same thing devices in a man's heart

It is not from God

and as for

Jer. 10:23–25 —ESV
Ҧ I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
Correct me, O LORD, but in justice; not in your anger, lest you bring me to nothing.
¶ Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not, and on the peoples that call not on your name, for they have devoured Jacob;”

Why would the psalmist need correction if the Lord directed all his steps

Why pours out his wrath on the nations if God was directing their steps

all these verses recognize the sovereignty of God without affirming divine meticulous determination of all things
God uses the persons mind to do and think what God has determined. A persons mind/heart is in Gods hand to turn it whatever Gods will is. Prov 21:1

The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water:
he turneth it whithersoever he will.

That word heart is translated 12 x as mind in scripture
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I

My brothers do not call me a dog or a swine

Ring a bell ?
So you're claiming that even though I'm a Calvinist, I'm not your "brother"?
You just contradicted yourself.

As for my reference to Matt. 7, I respond:

Gal. 4:10 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?


As for me not being your brother, are you commanded only to love your brothers, or did Jesus teach you to love even your enemies? I don't think you even believe the Bible, if you think it's okay not to love your enemies. But that's only my opinion....
 
Top