WCF Chapter 3
- Thread starter Miller
- Start date
- Status
A5pointer
Puritan Board Sophomore
Someone here will explain to you better than I what this means. I believe it is speculative language to put logic to biblical truths that seem to be in tension. Those truths being (1) God is sovereign over all actions of men (2) God holds men resposible for their actions (3) God is not the author of sin.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
wrt to the will of the creatures, the statement is directed against Arminian accusations that Calvinists don't believe in free will. We do believe in free will, but not the same kind of free will that Arminians and Socinians believe. They believe that free will means the ability of contrary choice: I can choose to do an action or not to do it. I can choose to please God or not to please God. Calvinists do not believe in this kind of free will. Rather, we believe that free will means that a person can do anything that it is within that person's nature to do. If a person is a sinner, then he is not free to please God. Rather, he is free to make free choice among several sinful options. Obviously, if the Arminian definition of free will were true, then God is not free, since God cannot sin, which He would be able to do if He had the power of contrary choice. In other words, free will is defined by the character of the person.
The second part of that statement has to do with rejecting hyper-Calvinism, which states that there is really no need for evangelism (for instance), since God will convert that person anyway. This really does make people into robots. The correct interpretation of God's sovereignty is that He uses any means that He chooses in order to accomplish His desire, including missionaries, etc. That means us. Therefore, we (and the means of grace) are the secondary causes, while God is the primary cause. God's sovereignty therefore works through secondary causes sometimes (actually, most of the time), and without secondary causes sometimes (as in miracles). But the latter does not deny the former. Hope this is clear.
The second part of that statement has to do with rejecting hyper-Calvinism, which states that there is really no need for evangelism (for instance), since God will convert that person anyway. This really does make people into robots. The correct interpretation of God's sovereignty is that He uses any means that He chooses in order to accomplish His desire, including missionaries, etc. That means us. Therefore, we (and the means of grace) are the secondary causes, while God is the primary cause. God's sovereignty therefore works through secondary causes sometimes (actually, most of the time), and without secondary causes sometimes (as in miracles). But the latter does not deny the former. Hope this is clear.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
It means that there is no violation of man's will in that he is still able to freely choose that which he desires the most. Man is created as a decision maker and his decisions are not made outside himself. However, because our desires are controlled by sin and an epistemological receptive bias, man may be manipulated by setting up secondary means to steer him.
Satan knows this but God knows us inside out. God has placed certain desires in front of us and because he knows us so intimately he can control every action. We still decide according to our nature, freely choosing that which we desire the most, but God will never be surprised by our choice.
Satan knows this but God knows us inside out. God has placed certain desires in front of us and because he knows us so intimately he can control every action. We still decide according to our nature, freely choosing that which we desire the most, but God will never be surprised by our choice.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
God does not force us to follow His predestined plan, we do so willingly. Yet we still do so definitely.
Miller
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you everyone. The word violence was confusing me. I was thinking physical violence, but I think the violence it speaks of against the will is more like saying that we do not do away with the will, we just have a different understanding of it, than the Armianists.
- Status
