Great post, Chris – you’ve articulated this so much more clearly than I would have managed to do! Thanks. 
Chris, I also appreciate that contribution. To help me focus my thoughts, I’ve picked out a few things that I would hope you could clarify.
Is this an argument or an assertion? Are you attempting to prove a case, or justify a belief, or both?
Are influences necessary? I think you are saying that influences are not sufficient in themselves; however you seem to suggest that they are necessary?
Gravity DOES determine our actions, though, in the sense that it is part of the context of our form of life, within which our choices are made.
You made it clear, I think, that our free will is limited, bounded, determined by the 'force and amount of influences on us" - and I agree. Whether that leaves any content to the term ‘free’ will is another question.
What do ‘influences’ actually influence? Our emotions, our thought processes, our neurons? Is our ‘will’ an actual physical part of us, or is it a metaphor for speaking about justifications of actions in human beings?
Well, books have been written on the subject, for and against, and I doubt that we are going to settle anything on a forum. But I’m glad you stated where you stand on this, though I disagree for the most part. I don’t want it to become an ‘issue’ between us or others!
For me, both sides of the free will debate (whether or not it exists) are assertions. I think the hypothesis is completely unproveable either way. Even if we have free will, since our choices are always influenced by some desire, one could always say that the desire itself has determined the choice. What I said above was just to point out that in the end both sides are question begging if they try to “prove” that free will either exists or not. None of that is to say I think the view incoherent, however. I do think objections can be raised and answered (which I’ve tried to do.)
I’m not sure influences are necessary or not. I certainly can’t imagine making a choice without them though. As far as what these influences are and where they act. Well, I think the term “influence” is entirely meaningless on a deterministic worldview. Things either cause other things or they do not. The word influence, however, seems to suggest a sort of contingent causation which depends on more than just the influence for the cause to come to full effect. Do you draw a distinction between causes and influences?
I think our free choices are exercised by our souls - the part of us that can say “I” - which is immaterial and oftentimes effected, though not determined, by matter.
By no means! Just sharing my thoughts because I know many on the forum believe in free will and I always enjoy a good exchange over it.
Chrisguy,
I appreciate the effort you placed in your thoughts in support of freewill. I believe that any Calvinist, who takes their faith seriously, honestly tries to stay true to the Scriptures. On those verses I mentioned about Satan and evil are read in the mindset not to make God look good but to truly examine the meaning the text presents. It is the same with all those passages that show that man needs God to enlighten them, before they will say yes to Jesus and all those passages where Jesus Himself tells His disciples that they have been given the understanding of parables and not the others. The whole chapter of Romans 9, where Paul himself says who are we to argue with God, does he not have the right to make vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath. He has mercy on whom He wants. Then In Romans 11, we have God placing a stupor on the Jews to keep them from understanding. Granted, I no longer believe in double predestination, but I do believe that God will bring the unbeliever to faith in another age through Jesus.
Calvinist will readily admit that man his culpable for his sins and that the choices made in life have their consequences, because Scripture says so. This is one paradox that they will accept, the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Also, man does make real choices, but when it comes to that which is spiritual, their will his in bondage.
“Salvation is of the Lord.”
Jonah 2:9
Salvation is the work of God. It is he alone who quickens the soul “dead in trespasses and sins,” and it is he also who maintains the soul in its spiritual life. He is both “Alpha and Omega.” “Salvation is of the Lord.” If I am prayerful, God makes me prayerful; if I have graces, they are God’s gifts to me; if I hold on in a consistent life, it is because he upholds me with his hand. I do nothing whatever towards my own preservation, except what God himself first does in me. Whatever I have, all my goodness is of the Lord alone. Wherein I sin, that is my own; but wherein I act rightly, that is of God, wholly and completely. If I have repulsed a spiritual enemy, the Lord’s strength nerved my arm. Do I live before men a consecrated life? It is not I, but Christ who liveth in me. Am I sanctified? I did not cleanse myself: God’s Holy Spirit sanctifies me. Am I weaned from the world? I am weaned by God’s chastisements sanctified to my good. Do I grow in knowledge? The great Instructor teaches me. All my jewels were fashioned by heavenly art. I find in God all that I want; but I find in myself nothing but sin and misery. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Do I feed on the Word? That Word would be no food for me unless the Lord made it food for my soul, and helped me to feed upon it. Do I live on the manna which comes down from heaven? What is that manna but Jesus Christ himself incarnate, whose body and whose blood I eat and drink? Am I continually receiving fresh increase of strength? Where do I gather my might? My help cometh from heaven’s hills: without Jesus I can do nothing. As a branch cannot bring forth fruit except it abide in the vine, no more can I, except I abide in him. What Jonah learned in the great deep, let me learn this morning in my closet: “Salvation is of the Lord.”
Charles Spurgeon
Grace, George
" I believe that any Calvinist, who takes their faith seriously, honestly tries to stay true to the Scriptures."
Yep. But of course, they are not the only ones who honestly try to stay true to the scriptures.
Dave,
I agree, but like Chrisguy, who no doubt is anice guy, yet when presented with some difficult Scriptures, he did not try to explain how they could mean something else.
Peace, George
Peace.
Hi, everyone –
The above musings on God and libertarian free will and the whole ‘creation of evil’ reminded me of a post I recently made in another forum (politically libertarian) in response to someone asking if/suggesting God was a brutal authoritarian.
Recently, I’ve come to think that maybe it just isn’t possible for God to create other persons, without them having to go through journeys of becoming, which will as a matter of course involve learning about the ramifications of non-Love vs Love. This is where I find the universalist view to make the most sense, since if God is patiently working and waiting for all to complete these journeys, then that big, global picture of ultimate reconciliation will make the pain and suffering inherent in the process ultimately justifiable to allow, in the long-term view of things.
Anyway, I’ve pasted my post below – curious to hear your thoughts. (Obviously, heavily influenced by my readings of George MacDonald, as I’m sure you can tell by some of my wording. 
)
To me, the foundation of understanding all of this is: God is Love.
Every creative, or other kind of action God engages in is for the fulfillment of this very nature of His being, of all reality.
He has made creatures, other distinct beings, so that they may grow into full participation in Love; but a genuine ‘otherness’ in our persons is only possible through a journey of becoming, of choosing to embrace Love by our own volition, as the all-encompassing Truth, our very life, the ground of our very being; dethroning the Self that vies to make itself god and distort reality; becoming the executioner of our own faults and the lies and distortions that would stand between us and Love; gaining perspective on the full tragedy of what non-Love brings – hatred, strife, chaos, death, darkness.
God is Love. God is just. God is merciful. Therefore, His justice must be merciful, and His mercy must be just; and both His mercy and justice are only for reconciling all to Love – NOT for the arbitrary, supposed retribution gained by mere punishment, or suffering.
You ask to be left alone by God to your own self, to determine your own truth – your wish will be granted; but you will discover in time that by withdrawing yourself from the very Source and ground of reality, of goodness, light, Love, you will find yourself withdrawing from everything BUT yourself; and soon you will be left in the outer darkness, alone, free to create the world of lies in your own mind, as you wish, but without the joy of relation to reality or any other creature or anything, that can only come by embracing it.
I believe that every soul that finds itself in outer darkness through withdrawal will reach a breaking point, will like the prodigal cry out in hatred of the lies they have become, of the non-Love they have pursued over Love and will find that though the Face of Love may have turned away, the Hand of Love still holds them, as the ground of their being, and is ready to draw them back fully into Love’s embrace, when they so decide.
And God has demonstrated this Love through the life and death and resurrection of His Son, who flung Himself into the yawning chasm that stood between Him and us His brethren, the children of His Father, and showed us the Way of Love, and was dedicated to that no matter what waves of darkness and death and mockery might break upon Him. He even knows what that outer darkness is like – for He cried out ‘My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken Me?!’ when it felt from the human perspective as if the Father was turning His face away. And yet He still declared ‘My God!’ realizing that His Father’s hand was upon Him, for the higher purpose of Love, and would never let go.
Christ showed the Way of Life, of Love, of the Servant, of dethroning Self, of loving God and neighbor. And He is the very Life that will enable you to do the same, if you so choose to open that door.
But be warned – it is not a matter of having correct opinions about Love; it is a matter of obeying Love, of being Love, of doing Love. You have to take up your cross daily and follow Him. Not just arrive at a correct theory about Him before you follow.
And I am learning that I have done too much thinking and theorizing and not enough following and becoming in my own life. No more! I am ready to destroy anything within me that will come between my self and Love. I would rather hell if it be to bring me to Love and Truth than to keep the pale decay of theories and sin instead.
Beautiful, beautiful post, Micah! Thank you.
Micah,
Matthew 22:37-39 (ASV)
37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.38 This is the great and first commandment.39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Why did God put all that information between Genesis and Revelation, if it was not to formulate knowledge of God (theology) and man’s state?
Grace,George
Thanks, Cindy
Thanks, George – yeah, I appreciate how Christ in relation to affirming these Great Commandments says that they are the bottom line of all the Law and all the Prophets: verse 40 … “On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.” Mark 12:31b (ASV) – “There is none other commandment greater than these.”
So I guess I would see all of Genesis to Revelation as an unfolding story of this transcendent nature of God, His Love, and our calling to participate in it through Him.
Thomas Talbott had an interesting exchange with John Piper (Reformed theologian) as to best interp of Romans 9:
evangelicaluniversalist.com/ … nation.pdf
I believe that the free will/determinism debate take places in three major spheres: philosophy, theology and Biblical exegesis. I think a take on the subject should acct for all three. Of course, the universalist can have his/her cake and eat it, too: if Cals are forced to be determinists, and Arms believers in human free will, univs. could hold to either determinism/free will. But maybe univ. is stretched too thin here. Nevertheless, determinism and free will seems as paradoxical in the Bible as it does strictly philosophically…
Prince,
I read the debate, and thought it was very enlightening. I early on in my Calvinism was influenced greatly by John Piper’s writings or more specifically, Jonathon Edwards whom he emulates in his theology. More recently I have been influence through Thomas Talbott’s writings and actually went to a talk he had here in Fresno California a few years ago. I believe that the issue Piper has, that keeps him from realizing the ramifications of Calvinism is the same that I once had, which is the presupposition that eternal conscious torment is true and the pressure of possibly going against or looking beyond orthodoxy is too much to consider. God’s sovereignty in ones salvation is unarguable in respect to Scripture (in my estimation), yet with a different view about Hell, I totally see how God’s sovereignty and the age one lives in is not the end of the story for the reprobate. I believe that John Piper at times struggles with his theology just like I did for nearly 30 years. I am thankful that I have found peace with God, in that I truly believe He does indeed love all people.
Grace, George
“So I guess I would see all of Genesis to Revelation as an unfolding story of this transcendent nature of God, His Love, and our calling to participate in it through Him.”
Micah,
I can not argue with that.
Blessings, George