Ex-Free Willer

[The Rogue Tomato]

There are lots of ex-Calvinists in this forum, so I figure I'll disclose that I am an ex-free-willer. In fact, one of the turning points was that I tried to write a treatise on salvation by free will choice. I was inspired to do so after reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. But I kept hitting dead ends with my reasoning, so I never finished it.

I struggled with a lot of things early in my Christian life (starting in my 30s). Among other things, being an animal lover, I struggled with God choosing to sacrifice animals. One day, I woke up and realized, He is God. He created the animals. He can do whatever He wants with His creation. Who am I to say His methods were bad or good?

That thought took hold, and a few years later that I started to see in Scripture what some call Calvinism and others call Doctrines of Grace or Reformed Doctrine. (I've never read Calvin apart from a couple times checking to see if he really wrote what some people claim, and those were other topics than what people call Calvinism.)

At that point, I was already committed to not question God's methods, because His ways are so far above our ways and beyond our understanding. So I read Scripture and took it for what it says, not imposing my idea of what God's motives should be according to anyone's personal image of God. In the end, Scripture alone convinced me of the Doctrines of Grace, Reformed Theology, Calvinism.

 

[Dizerner]

The problem with Calvinism is it takes a good truth to a bad end.

Calvinists sometimes think they have a corner on the market of exalting God's sovereignty, and they point out legitimate criticisms of lower views of sovereignty.

But the mere fact that God can do whatever he wants without being morally impugned, both does not logically necessitate Calvinism, nor are Calvinists the only ones with a high view of God's sovereignty.

You will see I disagree with a lot of anti-Calvinist rhetoric:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/bad-arguments-against-calvinism-that-need-to-stop.734/

But I also disagree with Calvinism itself as it does not have a maximally loving God.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

But I also disagree with Calvinism itself as it does not have a maximally loving God.

This is the core of your eisegesis. When you start with "A loving God would not..." you have abandoned the authority of Scripture and set your personal view of God above His word.

 

[Dizerner]

This is the core of your eisegesis. When you start with "A loving God would not..." you have abandoned the authority of Scripture and set your personal view of God above His word.

That's not really true.

Logic must necessarily come before the interpretation of words.

You can't bypass logic to prove your interpretation is better.

If love has a meaning—and it does—then by definition some things are unloving.

 

[civic]

That's not really true.

Logic must necessarily come before the interpretation of words.

You can't bypass logic to prove your interpretation is better.

If love has a meaning—and it does—then by definition some things are unloving.

For example double predestination is unloving for those who have no choice to be saved.

 

[Dizerner]

For example double predestination is unloving for those who have no choice to be saved.

Yes, we can safely conclude this.

 

[civic]

Yes, we can safely conclude this.

Also the “I “ in tulip is unloving since it’s by coercion and it force.

 

[Dizerner]

Also the “I “ in tulip is unloving since it’s by coercion and it force.

I could agree with that as well.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Logic must necessarily come before the interpretation of words.

Human logic is inferior, especially in our fallen condition. I prefer to rely on what Scripture says, not what seems logical to me.

 

[Dizerner]

Human logic is inferior, especially in our fallen condition. I prefer to rely on what Scripture says, not what seems logical to me.

You can claim to have a cheat code to the direct meaning, and by knowing the meaning before you logically process the words, you just "believe what it says." But we ALL interpret what it says. EVERYONE INTERPRETS. You can't interpret words without logic. Words do not come first. I mean I can just say any words equal any meaning, and then say "I just 'read' the words, I don't use any logic at all." But the fact is you are bringing presuppositions TO the text, you are not deriving them FROM the text. This is why you will find Calvinists will OVERLAY and SUPERIMPOSE deterministic type thinking on passages that describe multiple possible outcomes.

You can say that you get some kind of supernatural spiritual revelation, and I agree God gives us that. But if we don't bring our presuppositions out into the open, we can make the false claim that our beliefs somehow come from the words of the Bible, instead of the reality that we are actually bringing our beliefs TO the words of the Bible, and making them fit. We all have a theological paradigm, a grid we bring through which we must make any Bible text "fit." So both sides of opposite beliefs claim to "just read the Bible and believe what it says." That's a pious sounding way to beg the question and assume one's own interpretation is the only default way to interpret.

If we throw logic out altogether, there is no sense in which we have to make sense anymore, you can just say random things and believe it says random things. But I will agree with you that we should humbly pray and seek God for the meaning of the passage instead of just assuming we can mentally figure it out better than everyone else.

 

[Dizerner]

The correct Biblical description of love, is to sincerely desire the well-being of someone.

So if God creates something with the only intent and purpose to make it evil and destroy it, he cannot be said to love that thing.

 

[Rockson]

This is the core of your eisegesis. When you start with "A loving God would not..." you have abandoned the authority of Scripture and set your personal view of God above His word.

Thing is though Jesus taught us what a loving God would do and what a loving God would not do. I can show a variety of scriptures but here is one,

Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Matt 7: 9,12

So there is no problem assessing what a loving God will do or not do. Jesus even appealed to us it's ok to think this way.

 

[Rockson]

At that point, I was already committed to not question God's methods, because His ways are so far above our ways and beyond our understanding.

Sorry but you fell into a mistake of taking that scripture as a universal thing to cover anything imaginable. Deut 29: 29

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, Deut 29:29

Yes God's ways are above our ways but he has shown us his ways in the things he has taught.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There are lots of ex-Calvinists in this forum, so I figure I'll disclose that I am an ex-free-willer. In fact, one of the turning points was that I tried to write a treatise on salvation by free will choice. I was inspired to do so after reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. But I kept hitting dead ends with my reasoning, so I never finished it.

I struggled with a lot of things early in my Christian life (starting in my 30s). Among other things, being an animal lover, I struggled with God choosing to sacrifice animals. One day, I woke up and realized, He is God. He created the animals. He can do whatever He wants with His creation. Who am I to say His methods were bad or good?

That thought took hold, and a few years later that I started to see in Scripture what some call Calvinism and others call Doctrines of Grace or Reformed Doctrine. (I've never read Calvin apart from a couple times checking to see if he really wrote what some people claim, and those were other topics than what people call Calvinism.)

At that point, I was already committed to not question God's methods, because His ways are so far above our ways and beyond our understanding. So I read Scripture and took it for what it says, not imposing my idea of what God's motives should be according to anyone's personal image of God. In the end, Scripture alone convinced me of the Doctrines of Grace, Reformed Theology, Calvinism.

I agree with many things you said above. However, I believe they actually indicate that you have freewill. You reason. You have a perspective. You took action to be who you are today. Even before you were "born again" you had the same qualities of existence. You just had less information.

The increase of knowledge is often good. Very good. However, it can also be an impediment to reason. Solomon wrote that he increased knowledge above all his peers. Becoming greater than those before him. Having accomplished such, he declared that "all is vanity". Thusly, knowledge can be problematic. However, Hosiah wrote

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee

We should never consider ourselves to have obtained. Never. We press on.

It is my experience that there are many BIG changes in a person life that seeks God. Our lives are an endless journey of discovery. God has crafted us to seek Him. Everyone of us. He is not far from any of us. Any of us.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

 

[praise_yeshua]

The correct Biblical description of love, is to sincerely desire the well-being of someone.

So if God creates something with the only intent and purpose to make it evil and destroy it, he cannot be said to love that thing.

There is a boundary to that position. It is called Universalism.

God committed His love toward all men, but He will refuse to have a relationship with those who openly defy His efforts to win them to Himself.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You can claim to have a cheat code to the direct meaning, and by knowing the meaning before you logically process the words, you just "believe what it says." But we ALL interpret what it says. EVERYONE INTERPRETS. You can't interpret words without logic. Words do not come first. I mean I can just say any words equal any meaning, and then say "I just 'read' the words, I don't use any logic at all." But the fact is you are bringing presuppositions TO the text, you are not deriving them FROM the text. This is why you will find Calvinists will OVERLAY and SUPERIMPOSE deterministic type thinking on passages that describe multiple possible outcomes.

You can say that you get some kind of supernatural spiritual revelation, and I agree God gives us that. But if we don't bring our presuppositions out into the open, we can make the false claim that our beliefs somehow come from the words of the Bible, instead of the reality that we are actually bringing our beliefs TO the words of the Bible, and making them fit. We all have a theological paradigm, a grid we bring through which we must make any Bible text "fit." So both sides of opposite beliefs claim to "just read the Bible and believe what it says." That's a pious sounding way to beg the question and assume one's own interpretation is the only default way to interpret.

If we throw logic out altogether, there is no sense in which we have to make sense anymore, you can just say random things and believe it says random things. But I will agree with you that we should humbly pray and seek God for the meaning of the passage instead of just assuming we can mentally figure it out better than everyone else.

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.
6 In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.

 

[Dizerner]

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.
6 In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it.

Do you trust your own heart to trust God perfectly?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it.

Do you trust your own heart to trust God perfectly?

No, I don't. I trust God as best I can through the new heart I have been given by God. I was a devout, evangelical atheist into my 30s. God transformed me and gave me a new heart.

The problem with your arguments are that they come from the flesh, not the Spirit. You "reason" that "A loving God would never..." from a fallen state. You trust your fallen logic over and above the word of God. Sorry if that's to bold for you, but that's how I see it.

 

[TibiasDad]

This is the core of your eisegesis. When you start with "A loving God would not..." you have abandoned the authority of Scripture and set your personal view of God above His word.

And where in scripture is that found? Is “God is Love” not in scripture?

Doug

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

And where in scripture is that found? Is “God is Love” not in scripture?

Doug

God is Love. But nowhere in Scripture does it say "A loving God would not...". That's a lie free-willers invent to justify their soteriology. God does not give, nor is He obliged to give His reasons for doing anything.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!