Intellectuelle

Hi Marla,

You said:
"While I totally agree with her point about materialism, what struck me was how much this sounded like Calvinism (minus the God aspect, which I know is huge). This is one reason I haven't fully embraced the Reformed view, though I lean toward it more than any other."

Here are a few resources that you may find helpful. Dr. Curt Daniel has a lecture on Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility that you may find helpful.

Lorraine Bottner also wrote briefly on the distinction between Calvinism and fatalism in his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

You may find these resources helpful, even if in the final analysis you disagree with them. You may also want to do searches for distinctions between "free will" and "free agency" online. Sometimes the different views are also called Compatiblism or Compatiblistic Freedom as over against Libertarian Freedom. An investigation of the differences between Hard and Soft Determinism may also be useful.

Take care,
Tony

Maybe what Tony suggests is a good avenue for you, Marla; but here's how I read the Bible, which is why I hold to Calvinism to put a name on it.

Does God love everyone? Yes. God loved the whole world enough to send his son so that whoever believes in him will live forever. But does God love everyone the same? No, because he loves his own people, his church, like a bridegroom. His atoning work on the cross was to ransom his own bride from this fallen world. That is the amazing love of God! Sure, he loves everyone and should everyone his grace in different ways; but he loves us, the redeemed, so much that he redeemed us for himself.

That is what Christ accomplished on the cross. Nothing can separate you from that love--nothing. Not even yourself. Romans 8:31-39

I didn't think about this until now. I read a chapter from Ron Nash's book The Concept of God that touches on the subject of compatibilism and incompatiblism as it relates to divine foreknowledge. It's posted here:

Streaming Audio Version

Download the MP3 Here

You'll at least get to hear my pleasant reading voice :-)

I had never read that particular Lewis work,'A Grief Observed'. The quote struck me. It is so right on....

Thanks for including it in the reading here.

Marla,
Thanks for the Lewis quote. I was trying to remember that one myself when I was posting over at the Thinklings on this topic. It really does apply here.

It's clear humans must make choices, but I've never really understood why Christians use the term 'free will'. Obviously, I have a will--the part of me that makes choices. And obviously I have choices to make, thousands every day that I hardly think about. As a sentient, aware person, I can't escape choice--and the consequences of those choices. But what does 'free' mean? If it means free from external compulsions that I am aware of then, fine--but that kind of begs the question: If something I am aware of is preventing me from choosing a certain way then I don't call that having a choice. But if 'free' means free of influences outside of my knowledge or control then that's impossible. The nature of our existence as human beings is that innumerable things outside of our control influence our decsions: our genetics & biochemistry, our upbringing, our experiences, etc..(and Christians would have to include spiritual influences in this list). If our choices are not based on these things--then our choices become just random 'rolls of the dice'. So we either have choices influenced by things outside of our control or our choices are random--neither of which fits the description of 'free will' choice, as I have understood most people to mean it.

So I think 'free will' is a misleading term--and since it's not used in the Bible, I prefer to use the term 'choice'. I have, as a sentient being, aware of my options, a will and the gift of 'choice'--not a 'free' will.

Debra, thanks for making that distinction. I'm going to have to chew on it a while, as my powers of concentration have been greatly weakened by the latest frenzy of online activity and the usual mother-of-an-infant sleep deprivation. I'm really glad you're posting here--I relate to how you think :)

Marla,

Thanks for provoking an interesting discussion "amongst ourselves."

FYI, Tom Clark of naturalism.org just wrote to tell me he has written a response from the materialist perspective.

Warm regards--

Amanda, I'm happy you this. I loved your post today. Why you don't use commenting on your blog, if you don't mind me asking?

Marla,
Love your blog! The Intellectuelles are a really interesting collection of Sisters. As I commented on Lexie's bio, I have really been hungering for a long time for this type of dialogue and 'cyber-fellowship'. :-) Thanks so much for providing it. I look forward to lots of interesting, enlightening, (and fun) exchanges.

PS No need to explain the 'brain drain' from new baby sleep deprivation--been through it five times myself! :)

We did allow comments, at first. But my husband works for the Discovery Institute (which is very controversial because it argues that scientists should be able to point out the weaknesses of Darwinism, and posit alternative theories, without getting fired), and so we kept getting ugly comments from hardcore materialists--not the let's-have-a-rational-discussion sort of comments, but bludgeoning, vulgar, insulting other commenters, ad hominem attacks, etc.

The constant stream of venom just became too oppressive for me, so we turned comments off--which really was a tough decision, because we also had many good discussions going as well. I do still have e-mail available, and quite a few people write--and even if they disagree with us, they tend to be more civil in private than on a public forum.

Thanks for sharing that, Amanda. I'm sorry you were forced to make that decision. I know what it's like to have outside pressure applied, but banning certain IP addresses has worked form me for the most part.

You can have externally-originating influences without the influence being absolute domination. If we think of options in life as letters of the alphabet, it might be said, for instance, that God puts D, K, S and Y out of most people's reach, puts H, M, P and W out of some people's reach, and so on; but if we can even choose between, say, F and Z, and have it be really ourselves choosing and not God actually forcing us to choose a certain way, then the term "free will" still has a meaning. Rigid predestinationists make themselves believe that this would be denying God's sovereignty, but that is nonsense; God does not cease to be sovereign just because He _delegates_ a power of choice to us!