[Thinker]

It became apparant to me a few years ago upon posting here that there is a majority who would hold to the doctrine of calvinism. Such a doctrine, not in accordance with the teachings of Calvin himself, but that of the Dort, has it's faults, as does arminianism, and any other theory that man has by his own limited rationality suggested throughout the ages. The answer to calvinism lies in the concept of determinism and proving the point of free will through scripture via reductio ad absurdum.

1) determinism is the idea that God determines beforehand all the events that happen. There are two views of free will associated with this: compatibilism, which states that your free will is limited to the plans that were determined, and incompatibilism (or libertarianism) which states that your free will is not limited according to determinism. A common misconception many have about free will is that it is completely free, and it isn't; I cannot wake up in China tomorrow, nor can I wake up 40. However, it must be realized that free will is not recognized by action, by subjectivity. With this in mind, it is impossible to decide to be saved, for such is in opposition to our original beliefs, being under the curse of depravity and selfishness. However, it must be realized that the moral law is not placed within our being for the simple reason of keeping us from civil war. It is there to beg us to realize the futility and cruelty of life, in the hope that we would reach for something greater. The bible states that men have eternity in their hearts (Eccl. 3:11) and such is only a reminder of the desires we have for Christ, and because of our depravity and impatience fill such with lusts that last seasons, but eventually determine the person we are, mutating our image of God into that which acts as a parasite on us - sin. We must understand that while we are without the power to save ourselves, the alternative, strict determinism, has no grounds for a God who values beings intrinsically:

2) Scripture states that God desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). If determinism is true - and this would mean that before anything, God "randomly" planned salvation for whom He wished, twisting their arms in a way - then God contradicts His own word, for How can God, who under determinism is said to make wills, also desire that the wills He created conform to the plan that He purposely directed them away from? This would definitly give the idea of the God of the process theologians (ironically) - as one who cannot make up His mind, and one whose limited power sacrifices the eternal condmenation of those who are in waiting.

Free will exists; It is limited; however, it is within our grasp, for the mind itself is the grand miracle that free will rests on. Regardless of external situations, you still have a conscience to beg you to hold to what is right. Also, God foreseeing implies that He saw an action after it was performed, which would mean that man performs first and God plans around it. This, also, is in the face of hypercalvinists, for even in tough scripture passages as Romans 9, this fact holds.

We simply must conceive of the goodness of God in accordance with rationality - of which would come only after faith - and our conclusion will be one or the other: 1) a God of love (1 Jn. 4:8) who desires the redemption of His creation (1 Tim. 2:4) and has no death in those who will not be saved (Ezekial 33:11). Such a God is one who is a liberal because of His compassion, and one who will wait for eternity for the repentance of a soul, but must, under the omniscience that He has, condemn those who are "beyond feeling" and without hopes of redemption, for the mind clearly has such a limit. We need not contemplate the insanity of Nietschze to realize that our minds are at our disposals, even in realms other than rationality. 2) a God who limits His mercy and thus contradicts His being. Such a God is one who is doctrinally correct, who is as the Pharisees are, without mercy, and impounding upon 'justice', rendering men to literal fire, going out of His way to inject pain and fear into them, when indeed their own minds would cause them enough pain, shame, contempt, anger, wrath, and grief fueled on the arrogance that kept them from repentance, forever worsening into a state of what C.S. Lewis calls "remains".

If we choose the first, we must hold to patience and abstaining from posing hasty generalizations in regards to the area that our theology and philosophy have not conquered, for because a man with his subjective insight has not contemplated something, does not mean that it does not exist in the realm of the objective. "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

blessings,

John