Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” with a dollop of "free will".

What is compatibilism?

Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile the theological proposition that every event is causally determined, ordained, and/or decreed by God (i.e., determinism, not to be confused with fatalism)—with the free will of man. Promulgated originally from a philosophical viewpoint by the Greek Stoics and later by numerous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, and from a theological viewpoint by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin, the compatibilist concept of free will states that though the free will of man seems irreconcilable with the proposition of determinism, they both do exist and are “compatible” with one another.

The foundation of the compatibilistic concept of free will is the means by which “will” is defined. From a theological viewpoint, the definition of the will is viewed in light of the revealed, biblical truths of original sin and the spiritual depravity of man. These two truths render the definition of “will” in regard to fallen man as “captive to sin” (Acts 8:23), a “slave of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:16-17) and subject only to its “master,” which is sin (Romans 6:14). As such, although the will of man is “free” to do as it wishes, it wishes to act according to its nature, and since the nature of the fallen will is sinful, every intent of the thoughts of the fallen man’s heart is “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, cf. Genesis 8:21). He, being naturally rebellious to that which is spiritually good (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14), “is bent only on rebellion” (Proverbs 17:11). Essentially, man is “free” to do as he wishes, and he does just that, but man simply cannot do that which is contrary to his nature. What man “wills” to do is subject to and determined solely by his nature.

Here is where compatibilism makes the distinction between man having a free will and being a “free agent.” Man is “free” to choose that which is determined by his nature or by the laws of nature. To illustrate, the laws of nature prohibit man from being able to fly, but this does not mean that man is not free. The agent, man, is only free to do that which his nature or the laws of nature allow him to do. Theologically speaking, though the natural man is unable to submit himself to the law of God (Romans 8:7-8) and unable to come to Christ unless the Father draws him to Him (John 6:44), the natural man still acts freely in respect to his nature. He freely and actively suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) because his nature renders him unable to do otherwise (Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10-11). Two good examples of Jesus’ confirmation of this concept can be found in Matthew 7:16-27 and Matthew 12:34-37.

With the distinction between free agency and free will defined, compatibilism then addresses the nature of the free agency of man in respect to the theological proposition known as determinism and/or the biblical truth of the omniscient nature of God. The foundational issue is how man can be held accountable for his actions if his actions were always going to occur (i.e., the future is not subject to change) and could not have been anything other than that which occurred. Although there are numerous passages of Scripture that address this issue, there are three primary passages to examine.

The story of Joseph and his brothers
The first is the story of Joseph and his brothers (Genesis 37). Joseph was hated by his brothers because their father, Jacob, loved Joseph more than any of his other sons (Genesis 37:3) and because of Joseph’s dreams and their interpretation (Genesis 37:5-11). At an opportune time, Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave to traveling Midianite traders. Then they dipped his tunic in the blood of a slain goat in order to deceive their father into thinking Joseph had been mauled by a beast (Genesis 37:18-33). After many years, during which Joseph had been blessed by the Lord, Joseph’s brothers meet him in Egypt, and Joseph reveals himself to them (Genesis 45:3-4). It is Joseph’s discussion with his brothers that is most pertinent to the issue:

“So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt” (Genesis 45:8).

What makes this statement startling is that Joseph had previously said his brothers had, in fact, sold him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5). A few chapters later, the concept of compatibilism is presented:

“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).

The Genesis story tells us that it was, in fact, the brothers who sold Joseph into Egypt. However, Joseph makes it clear that God had done so. Those who reject the concept of compatibilism would say that this verse is simply stating that God “used” Joseph’s brothers’ actions for good. However, this is not what the text says. From Genesis 45-50, we are told that (1) Joseph’s brothers had sent Joseph to Egypt, (2) God had sent Joseph to Egypt, (3) Joseph’s brothers had evil intentions in sending Joseph to Egypt, and (4) God had good intentions in sending Joseph to Egypt. So, the question is, who sent Joseph to Egypt? The bewildering answer is that both Joseph’s brothers and God did. It was one action being carried out by two entities, the brothers and God doing it simultaneously.

The commission of Assyria
The second passage that reveals compatibilism is found in Isaiah 10, a prophetic warning passage for God’s people. As divinely promised in Deuteronomy 28-29, God is sending a nation to punish His people for their sins. Isaiah 10:6 says that Assyria is the rod of God’s anger, “commissioned” against God’s people to “seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets.” Notice, however, what God says about Assyria:

“Yet [Assyria] does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations” (Isaiah 10:7, NASB).

God’s intent in the Assyrian invasion is to inflict His righteous judgment against sin, and the intent of the Assyrians is to “destroy and cut off many nations.” Two different purposes, two different entities acting to bring about this purpose, in one, single action. As we read further, God reveals that, although this destruction is determined and decreed by Him (Isaiah 10:23), He will still punish the Assyrians because of the “arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness” (Isaiah 10:12, cf. Isaiah 10:15). Even though God Himself had infallibly determined the judgment of a disobedient people, He holds those who brought the judgment accountable for their own actions.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ
The third passage of Scripture that speaks of compatibilism is found in Acts 4:23-28. As revealed in Acts 2:23-25, Christ’s death on the cross was carried out by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” Acts 4:27-28 further reveals that the actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel had been determined and decreed by God Himself to occur as they “gathered together against” Jesus and did “what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Although God had determined that Christ should die, those responsible for His death were still held accountable for their actions. Christ was put to death by wicked men, “yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer” (Isaiah 53:10). Once again, the answer to the question "who put Jesus to death?" is both God and the wicked people—two purposes carried out by two entities within a single action.

There are other passages of Scripture that pertain to the concept of compatibilism, such as God hardening the hearts of individuals (e.g., Exodus 4:21; Joshua 11:20; Isaiah 63:17). While compatibilism seems bewildering to us (Job 9:10; Isaiah 55:8-11; Romans 11:33), this truth has been revealed by God Himself as the means by which His sovereign decree is reconciled with the will of man. God is sovereign over all things (Psalm 115:3, Daniel 4:35, Matthew 10:29-30), God knows all things (Job 37:16; Psalm 147:5; 1 John 3:19-20), and man is held accountable for what he does (Genesis 18:25; Acts 17:31; Jude 1:15). Truly, His ways are unfathomable (Job 9:10; Romans 11:33), and so we should trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6).
 
You ignored my answer the last time I responded to this question, why would I respond again.

Welcome to "ignore" as you are clearly unwilling to listen and merely waiting to repeat the same questions.
This is what happened. I wrote

God's abandoning of them was not the cause of their initial darkness and foolishness
And you replied

No it was not … that is why I am not a Hard Determinist.

You therefore gave a testimony rejecting that God determined everything

Hello
 

What is compatibilism?

Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile the theological proposition that every event is causally determined, ordained, and/or decreed by God (i.e., determinism, not to be confused with fatalism)—with the free will of man. Promulgated originally from a philosophical viewpoint by the Greek Stoics and later by numerous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, and from a theological viewpoint by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin, the compatibilist concept of free will states that though the free will of man seems irreconcilable with the proposition of determinism, they both do exist and are “compatible” with one another.

The foundation of the compatibilistic concept of free will is the means by which “will” is defined. From a theological viewpoint, the definition of the will is viewed in light of the revealed, biblical truths of original sin and the spiritual depravity of man. These two truths render the definition of “will” in regard to fallen man as “captive to sin” (Acts 8:23), a “slave of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:16-17) and subject only to its “master,” which is sin (Romans 6:14). As such, although the will of man is “free” to do as it wishes, it wishes to act according to its nature, and since the nature of the fallen will is sinful, every intent of the thoughts of the fallen man’s heart is “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, cf. Genesis 8:21). He, being naturally rebellious to that which is spiritually good (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14), “is bent only on rebellion” (Proverbs 17:11). Essentially, man is “free” to do as he wishes, and he does just that, but man simply cannot do that which is contrary to his nature. What man “wills” to do is subject to and determined solely by his nature.
Compatibilism


Compatibilism is a Calvinist doctrine which attempts to harmonize divine determinism and human free-will. Calvinists often use this term to claim that they, too, believe in free-will, that is, “compatibilistic free-will.” Unfortunately, though, it is a non-free, free-will and hence nothing more than camouflaged determinism.

Compatibilists teach that people will do what is “natural” for them, that is, whatever is consistent with their nature. However, what they often fail to disclose is that they also believe a person’s nature comes completely determined, meaning that it is subject to exhaustive, meticulous determinism. Hence, compatibilistic free-will is the antithesis of freedom. Genuine free-will must include autonomy of reason. Only then can a person’s choices be uniquely and independently their own.

What do Calvinists believe?

Compatibilism is God being God, and man being man.

Our reply:

Compatibilism is God being God, and then also God playing man by exhaustively decreeing every man’s nature, from which springs all thoughts and intentions. Even by the Compatibilist’s own admission, “Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism.” [1] Within the compatibilist’s framework, 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 culpability. Ascribing culpability to humanity simply because they are ‘doing what they want to do,’ appears plausible only because it subtly evokes a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his or her 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, we 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. Even John Calvin recognized this problem within the claims of his systematic:

John Calvin: “How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance…. I daily so meditate on these mysteries of his judgments that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me.”

As a disclaimer, philosophical Compatibilism should not be confused with the fact that Scripture shows God working compatibly with the intentions of others. For example, in Genesis 37:28 (as it relates to 50:20), God may have steered the Midianite traders nearby to Joseph’s brothers because He knew that utilizing them as an alternative to murdering their brother would be “compatible” with their intentions and interests, with which God would then facilitate Joseph’s rescue, apart from having to use more obvious, supernatural intervention. In other words, saying that two things are compatible is not to say that this makes philosophical Compatibilism true. That would be an equivocation fallacy. For instance, just because a husband and wife’s wills are compatible in accomplishing something doesn’t mean “Compatibilism” is true.

[1] John Hendryx, How can God be Sovereign and Man still be Free? Web site:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/sovereignfree.html in which this article was endorsed by Phil Johnson of Grace to You.

BTW

According to your theology man is born hating God he therefore has no will to believe in God. But God in your theology causes at least some to believe anyway

Thus his free will was not in it.

And if God determined him to be born that way, there was no free will in being that way.
 

In the story of Job, did GOD "determine" what Satan was permitted to do to Job?


He permitted what Satan could do. He did not sovereignly determine Satan's intent and action

Did God COMPEL (like a robot) Satan to do anything to Job or did Satan follow his own evil desires?

Here if you are actually defending Calvinist compatibilism you must advocate hard determinism. God would have determined Satan's intent and action; thus, he would be compelled and willing at the same time.

Permitting someone to do what they want is not hard determinism

Were Satan's evil desires "Compatible" with what God permitted or were Satan's evil desires "Hard (irresistibly) Determined" by God?


Apparently you do not understand. Compatibilism is a combination of hard determinism and willingness. God sovereignly determines the act, and the determined one is stated to willingly have committed the act.

  • I see a lesson in Job that can be applied to Romans 1 and God "abandoning them" (you may be incapable of making the leap and seeing the parallel, but the "Compatibalism" is irrefutable in the story of God, Satan and Job.)
  • I see this lesson on what God restrains and what God allows and free will ... Compatibalism ... as having application to the issue of Free Will and Irresistible Grace in the subject of soteriology (how God saves).
Romans 1:21–32 (NASB95) — 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

What you totally missed is God did not determine they would not honor him, or give thanks. That they should serve a creature rather than the creator etc.

If you are going to argue for compatibilism, you would need God himself determining such action and then proclaim them as having willingly done so.

But God did not determine such action.

And giving someone over to their sinfulness is not the same as having determined all their sinfulness.

Rather it is Significant judgment from Him

When God gives someone over to a thought or action, it often indicates a significant judgment from Him. This phrase is used in the context of Romans 1:24-28, where God gives the unrighteous Gentiles over to their sinful desires and actions. It signifies a complete abandonment of the individual by God, allowing them to pursue their sinful inclinations without restraint. This act is a form of judicial hardening, where God permits individuals to pursue their sinful inclinations as a consequence of their persistent rebellion. It highlights the role of human free will, as God respects the choices of individuals, even when those choices lead to sin and separation from Him. This divine allowance serves as both a judgment and a call to repentance, as the consequences of sin often lead individuals to recognize their need for God's grace and mercy.

GotQuestions.org+5
 
Yes. God gave Lucifer free will.

s e l a h
Not in Job he did not. In Job, God constantly RESTRAINED the desires by forbidding what could be done.
 
It is very difficult to imagine God's having determined one's desire and action is compatible with a free will.
… but predetermined (or predestined) only applies to the Elect, those who love God.

Romans 8:28-33 (NKJV) 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to [His] purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to be] conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God [is] for us, who [can be] against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? [It is] God who justifies.

S e l a h
 
So think about the time when Lucifer rebelled before the foundation of the world. Did Lucifer have free will?

S e l a h
Yes.
 
… but predetermined (or predestined) only applies to the Elect, those who love God.

Romans 8:28-33 (NKJV) 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to [His] purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to be] conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God [is] for us, who [can be] against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? [It is] God who justifies.

S e l a h
???

Calvinism teaches God determines all things.
 
???

Calvinism teaches God determines all things.
Interesting isn't it?

It appears that not all are in agreement with what they believe on that Calvin/predestined side of things.
 
Interesting isn't it?

It appears that not all are in agreement with what they believe on that Calvin/predestined side of things.
Yes some affirm God is the primary cause of everything including sin, evil while others claim God is the secondary cause. They play the semantics game and that’s where compatibilism comes it trying to explain away determinism. A true 5 point Calvinist must be a hard determinist.
 
Back
Top Bottom