Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
You are drawing a false conclusion. You assume that since the same decision is made every time there was no real decision in the first place. If I always choose Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream over any other flavor, does that mean I was not really presented with a choice in the first place?
Now, how did you jump to the issue of it being 'random'?
Did you actually read the article above? See paragraph 3.
God foresaw the free choices men would make and factored those choices (choosing between alternatives) and that is why 'man is without excuse.' Romans 1 clearly states that man had the knowledge of God and rejected it.
You still have not accounted for the point being raised in the article. What motivates, causes or leads to man's choice?
The 'will' makes a decision against two desires. Now, because one may make an irrational decision (and choose against Christ) should be not suprise to us, since we do the same when we sin!
And once again, you have not gone the next step to ask what makes one person make an irrational decision while another makes a rational one?
Oh, no, it is the only viable answer, since it fits scripture, which states that God desires all men to be saved, and it is man that is rejecting God, not God rejecting man (with a pre-eternal uncontitional election)
I'm going to assume that you misread the latter half of that statement because I know you are not a universalist.
I maintain that your argument is not logical but rhetorical. It does not start with God's revealed attributes, but starts with a preconceived notion of God and then fits certain proof texts to fit that notion of both God and man. When you push Calvinism to its logical premise, you have an unknown God who is not revealed in Scripture, but contradicts Himself in Scripture. Calvinism makes Christiantiy all 'smoke and mirrors' and is thus mysticism.
Ahh, yes...the old proof-texting argument again. Talk about rhetoric. When you push Arminianism to its logical premise...you have a God who is not omniscient, not omnipotent and not just. Now see, doesn't that add a lot to this argument? :D
And thanks for posting that little excerpt which has nothing to do with the article I posted. I'm sure I could find a dozen more from former Arminians, which again would add so much weight to my argument </sarcasm>
Calvinism rejects the basic rules of Biblical interpetation that clear scripture interpret obscure scripture and that scripture cannot contradict scripture.
Right...just like Romans 8, Ephesians 1, and John 6.
You maintain that because you cannot understand how man can make this choice, that it is really God who making the choice for man, but it appeals it is man's choice, so we will consider it as such! LOL!
And you still cannot explain at all why, if the effect of the Fall is somehow miraculously removed before all people by 'prevenient grace,' some choose and some reject. You can't point to anything...just this vague notion of free will than you still can't even define to a logical satisfaction. But I'm the mystical one because I maintain that God chooses whom He will and that just because we're not privi to His reasoning behind His choice doesn't mean it's capricious or arbitrary. You somehow demand full disclosure from God.
Your concept of 'spiritual death' is made to fit your preconceived notion of God's sovereignity, and is not scriptural.
I thought your pefect King James Authorized Version wasn't missing anything. Clearly it is if you stand by the statement you just made.
That is based on clear scripture, not the imagination of the Father of the most mystical system in existance, Roman Catholicism, Augustine, the father also of Calvinism.
Yes, thank God for Arminius and Wesley, who pulled the church of Jesus Christ out of the apostasy that began shortly after the ascension. Oh wait...that was Joseph Smith...
Now, if it's all the same to you, I'd like to return to the initial point of this thread, which is to discuss the nature of man's 'free will.' I would like your definition of 'free will' and an explanation of how man makes choices.
Gods grace
No, I am not 'assuming' that.
What I am 'assuming' is that (according to Calvinism) the 'choice' of what 'ice cream' flavor has already been made for the individual.
The individual only thinks it is his choice.
Ofcourse, God and the Calvinists know otherwise.
Now, how did you jump to the issue of it being 'random'? Did you actually read the article above? See paragraph 3. God foresaw the free choices men would make and factored those choices (choosing between alternatives) and that is why 'man is without excuse.' Romans 1 clearly states that man had the knowledge of God and rejected it. You still have not accounted for the point being raised in the article. What motivates, causes or leads to man's choice?
I have said a number of times, it is the will that makes a choice between various desires (ice cream vs cake etc)
Sometimes those decisions might be viewed as 'irrational' or 'short-termed', they are nevertheless real choices between two alternatives.
A 'person' by definition is someone who has 'intellect, sensibility and will'
The 'will' makes a decision against two desires. Now, because one may make an irrational decision (and choose against Christ) should be not suprise to us, since we do the same when we sin! And once again, you have not gone the next step to ask what makes one person make an irrational decision while another makes a rational one?
That is the individual will deciding between alternatives.
How the individual views those decisions (ice cream vs cake) is based on a varied combination of choices.
No decision is made in a vacuum.
Good choices lead to other good choices, likewise bad choices lead to other bad choices. That is how 'habits' are formed, good and bad, choosing to do something over and over until you no longer even give it a thought, it becomes impulsive.
The chain is very difficult to break.
It can be broken however, as we see good men go bad and bad men become good. (Demas and Mannasah)
Oh, no, it is the only viable answer, since it fits scripture, which states that God desires all men to be saved, and it is man that is rejecting God, not God rejecting man (with a pre-eternal uncontitional election) I'm going to assume that you misread the latter half of that statement because I know you are not a universalist.
And what part do you think a misread?
God does want all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9)
I maintain that your argument is not logical but rhetorical. It does not start with God's revealed attributes, but starts with a preconceived notion of God and then fits certain proof texts to fit that notion of both God and man. When you push Calvinism to its logical premise, you have an unknown God who is not revealed in Scripture, but contradicts Himself in Scripture. Calvinism makes Christiantiy all 'smoke and mirrors' and is thus mysticism. Ahh, yes...the old proof-texting argument again. Talk about rhetoric. When you push Arminianism to its logical premise...you have a God who is not omniscient, not omnipotent and not just. Now see, doesn't that add a lot to this argument? :D
I have not seen that done yet. I have seen a lot of straw man arguments against Arminians, but according to what both Arminus and Wesley actually taught (both believing in God's control of history), the Arminians/Wesley/Baptist view is based on clear scripture, that God loves His creation and has allowed rational creatures to make irrational decisions against Him, just as we do when we sin.
And thanks for posting that little excerpt which has nothing to do with the article I posted. I'm sure I could find a dozen more from former Arminians, which again would add so much weight to my argument
No, the point was that the individual saw that the scripture twisting and redefining of terms was not Biblical.
When you have to figure a way to explain away Jn.3:16 your system is in big trouble!
Calvinism rejects the basic rules of Biblical interpetation that clear scripture interpret obscure scripture and that scripture cannot contradict scripture. Right...just like Romans 8, Ephesians 1, and John 6.
In Rom.8 I see foreknowledge preceding Predestination. After John 6, I see Christ saying in John 12 that He will draw all men to Him. In Eph.1:4 I see someone predestinated who is in Christ.
You do not get into Christ except by faith (Eph.2:8-)
I do see Rom.5:18 left unanswered. Along with 1Tim.2:4, 4:10, Acts.17:30, Heb.2:9, 1Jn.2:2, 2Pet.2:1, Isa.53:6, Heb.10:39, Ezek.33:11 etc.
Your 'proof-texts' can be handled quite easily, but in order for the Calvinists to deal with those above, they have to either twist them, or appeal to a 'secret will'
You maintain that because you cannot understand how man can make this choice, that it is really God who making the choice for man, but it appeals it is man's choice, so we will consider it as such! LOL! And you still cannot explain at all why, if the effect of the Fall is somehow miraculously removed before all people by 'prevenient grace,' some choose and some reject. You can't point to anything...just this vague notion of free will than you still can't even define to a logical satisfaction. But I'm the mystical one because I maintain that God chooses whom He will and that just because we're not privi to His reasoning behind His choice doesn't mean it's capricious or arbitrary. You somehow demand full disclosure from God.
It is you are demanding 'full understanding'
You want an explaination of the 'irrational', which cannot be made, except that man wanted to do it!
The will makes a choice between various desires and weighs them and decides based on different prefences.
This is why some people spend all the money they make and some others invest and save it.
Many different motives can go into the same action.
So, when you sin, you have to choose to do so (1Cor.10:13) and thus, 'grieve and quench' the Holy Spirit.
So, is your 'choice' involved or did God want you to sin?
Sin is irrational, but it nevertheless is a choice that Christians still make after being saved.
Now, we have the Holy Spirit in us and yet, we can still resist that power.
Now, is it God willing you to do it?
In Romans 7, Paul makes it very clear that it is a war that goes on between desires and it is the will that chooses between them.
If we have made constant bad decisions for sin, our will is very weak, if good ones it is strong.
However, even strong believers (like David and Peter) can still fall into sin, through giving into their desires, an act of the will.
Your concept of 'spiritual death' is made to fit your preconceived notion of God's sovereignity, and is not scriptural. I thought your pefect King James Authorized Version wasn't missing anything. Clearly it is if you stand by the statement you just made.
A very obtuse statement.
Physical death is separation of soul and spirit from the body, spiritual death is the separation of soul and spirit from God and second death is the final and permanent form of spiritual death if the individual has not been saved from that. (Chafer, Systematic Theology, Doctrinal Summarization) So, what is the problem?
That is based on clear scripture, not the imagination of the Father of the most mystical system in existance, Roman Catholicism, Augustine, the father also of Calvinism. Yes, thank God for Arminius and Wesley, who pulled the church of Jesus Christ out of the apostasy that began shortly after the ascension. Oh wait...that was Joseph Smith...
I will thank God for those men before (1-3 centuries) Augustine who did not teach such nonsense that one is elected by God and the rest are damned.
I will thank God for men like Arminus and Wesley who stood for the truth against a system that would make God a liar in His scriptures (He doesn't really love all mankind, and doesn't really want them saved, He was 'just kidding' when He said it)
Now, if it's all the same to you, I'd like to return to the initial point of this thread, which is to discuss the nature of man's 'free will.' I would like your definition of 'free will' and an explanation of how man makes choices.
Fine, the final decider is the will of man.
Man's will is subject to varying factors which it must weigh and finally make a decision.
That decision is a real choice that it makes.
In the spiritual realm, it is first, to respond to God's call to all men (1Tim.4:10, Acts.17:30) by accepting the free gift of salvation (Rom.6:23)
If that is done and the individual becomes saved, then the issue becomes the Christian walk, which means more decisions have to made regarding the Christian life.
Here the will again comes into play, either giving power to the Old Sin Nature and living in sin or giving power to the residing Holy Spirit and letting Him control your life (Phil.2:12-13, Eph.4:30, 1Thess. 5:19)
Now, we do not always choose for God despite the residence of God in us.(1Jn.1:8)
So, either those choices are ours (irrational as they are, since sin is irrational) or they are really God's, who really wants us to sin for His glory (Rom.6:1-2)
So, you explain to me why we still sin.
No THAT is exactly what is at the heart of Calvinism. God chose you and not the poor shmuck down the street.
Your mis-charaterizations of Arminianism show that you clearly do not understand Arminianism. Arminians do not deny original sin.
But, unlike Calvinists, we don't focus on how bad man is.
We focus on how good God is.
Proves you don't understand Calvinism, either. You see God's choice as arbitrary and capricious.
Arminians do not deny original sin.
Never said you did. But you do not properly understand the depths of Original Sin, nor do you understand that it renders choice for God impossible to the sinner apart from God's first choosing them. You also ignore God's stated right to create some vessels for honor, and some for dishonor, i.e. destruction.
But, unlike Calvinists, we don't focus on how bad man is. We focus on how good God is.
You will never really understand how good God is until you understand just how bad you were before He saved you.
No one underestimates the depravity of man, both Arminius and Wesley were strong in making it clear that man was helpless in his own salvation.
However, that does not mean that man cannot make a choice, once God seeks him, and man is able to make that choice because God gave him that ability.
Finally, if it is only an issue of 'natures', then why do you and I, with our 'new' natures continue to sin?
You argue for choice with no limitations.
Now, where did I ever say that!
That is they typical Calvinistic straw man that must be placed in every discussion.
All choices are limited, but that does not mean that they are not still choices even if limited to only two alternatives!
Every choice is limited, by what is, what can be, and what is available. There is no such thing as truly free and unfettered choice. Alternatives imply limitations by the word's very meaning. One cannot choose that which is not possible. One can wish for it, conceive of it, think about it, but if they cannot actually choose it, it is no choice. Certain choices render other choices unavailable. The fact of the matter is, because of Adam's poor choice, all mankind is limited as to what they can choose.
Did Adam make a 'choice'?
Not according to Calvinism he didn't, he was predestinated to make that 'choice' so it was not really a choice.
That's why God must choose whom He will save, because if God didn't choose, all would perish, because of Adam's poor choice. We were in Adam at the time he chose, therefore we suffer the consequences of that choice.
Even if all that were true, the fact is that Romans 5 makes it very clear that we are dead in Adam but all savable by the Second Adam (Rom.5:18)
That is the beauty of Christ's redemptive work. When God chooses us and we respond, we are in Christ, the same way we were in Adam, and therefore partakers of the blessings of Christ the same way we partook of the curse of Adam. It is not a "representative" joining, as some would teach, but an "actual" joining. That is the significance of Christ being the Second Adam.
The 'significance' of Christ being the Second Adam, is that Grace had 'trumped' sin and everyone is savable because of what the Second Adam did, just as everyone was damned for what the first Adam did.
The depths of depravity and sin are glossed over by Arminians. To them, sin is only what someone does, and habitual sin is what makes man a sinner, not the circumstances of his birth. That's why they think that man can freely choose God as easily as he chooses sin. They make the choice for God the moral equivalent of any other choice, rather than accept the fact that the choice for God is not available to them until and unless God first chooses them. The scream it's not fair when presented with the fact that they cannot choose God apart from His choosing them, ignoring the fact that apart from God's choosing, no one wants to choose God (the Book of Romans goes into great detail about that). Yet they will charge God with unfairness if they can't choose God, even though that choice is not available to them apart from God. At the heart of this is the idea that man has some sort of redeeming worth that would cause God to choose any particular individual. There is none, and they don't like it. But that doesn't make God unfair, nor does it make His choice arbitrary. It is totally within God's power to choose whom He will, and to not choose whom He will.
We are not talking about what it is in God's power to do, we are dealing with what He says in Scripture He wants to do, that is save all men!(1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9, Jn.3:16, Acts.17:30.
Thank you for the post.
And that's what bothers you guys.
But what is implied is that the desires are equal and without individual merit. You're playing the argument about regarding the neutral-willed mule. If the desires are equal WHAT LEADS TO THE CHOICE?!?
That is the individual will deciding between alternatives. How the individual views those decisions (ice cream vs cake) is based on a varied combination of choices. No decision is made in a vacuum. Good choices lead to other good choices, likewise bad choices lead to other bad choices. That is how 'habits' are formed, good and bad, choosing to do something over and over until you no longer even give it a thought, it becomes impulsive. The chain is very difficult to break. It can be broken however, as we see good men go bad and bad men become good. (Demas and Mannasah)
All true...however you STILL have not shown how those decisions come about. There are two possibilities as to why the will would choose one alternative and not the other: it is a random decision without any motiviation, or it is a prior inclination. In the case of the former, as I've stated several times, the decision is morally neutral...not one of preference and not one that could be justly condemned. In the case of the latter, we must ask the question, "Where did the prior inclination come from?" If, as you say, it is mere habit, it still must have a point of origination. The inclination toward one or the other is dictated by desire, dec.
And what part do you think a misread? God does want all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9)
My original statement was "Either some then choose against that desire (which as stated begs other questions that must be answered), or all choose Christ and are saved." Obviously all don't choose Christ (which would lead to universal salvation) and I've never seen any indication that you believe such, so like I said I think you just misread what I wrote.
I have not seen that done yet. I have seen a lot of straw man arguments against Arminians, but according to what both Arminus and Wesley actually taught (both believing in God's control of history), the Arminians/Wesley/Baptist view is based on clear scripture, that God loves His creation and has allowed rational creatures to make irrational decisions against Him, just as we do when we sin.
Straw man arguments come in two flavors: intentional and unintentional. The intentional ones stem from intellectual dishonesty, the unintentional from a lack of understanding the original position. I think the latter are mischaracterized as the former a little too often, much to the detriment of civil conversation. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt:)
Your 'proof-texts' can be handled quite easily, but in order for the Calvinists to deal with those above, they have to either twist them, or appeal to a 'secret will'
That's funny...we Calvinists look at your proof-texts the same way:) This particular thread wasn't intended to continue the same old debate over those select texts pointed to by both sides, so I'm not going to go over that ground again, at least not until we've gotten through the issue at hand.
It is you are demanding 'full understanding' You want an explaination of the 'irrational', which cannot be made, except that man wanted to do it! The will makes a choice between various desires and weighs them and decides based on different prefences. This is why some people spend all the money they make and some others invest and save it. Many different motives can go into the same action.
And this is what kills me about the argument, dec! If I'm demanding to know why a man chooses the way he does, I'm unreasonable. I'm just supposed to accept that some choose one way and some another without thought to where that motivation originated. But when I take the same approach with God...when I accept that He chooses to elect some according to His own choices/desires/etc...I'm again being unreasonable?!? Regarding the above statements, you still haven't/cannot answer a) WHY man wanted to do it, b) HOW those 'different preferences' came about, or c) where those different motives originated. As created beings these are essential points!
Fine, the final decider is the will of man. Man's will is subject to varying factors which it must weigh and finally make a decision. That decision is a real choice that it makes.
Ok. Now to what types of 'factors' are you referring?
I'll have to address the rest later...time to head out of here...
Now, what makes you think that the desire are equal!
But even if they were, the mind would make one or the other have a heavier weight, adding other factors.
For example, in the ice cream issue, you might like both flavors, but are trying to lose weight so pick the one with fewer calories.
That is the individual will deciding between alternatives. How the individual views those decisions (ice cream vs cake) is based on a varied combination of choices. No decision is made in a vacuum. Good choices lead to other good choices, likewise bad choices lead to other bad choices. That is how 'habits' are formed, good and bad, choosing to do something over and over until you no longer even give it a thought, it becomes impulsive. The chain is very difficult to break. It can be broken however, as we see good men go bad and bad men become good. (Demas and Mannasah) All true...however you STILL have not shown how those decisions come about. There are two possibilities as to why the will would choose one alternative and not the other: it is a random decision without any motiviation, or it is a prior inclination.
First, the idea that the decision is random is a non-starter, I do not know anyone who is defending that view.
a prior inclination is a big factor, as I stated before, but it can be resisted and changed.
In the case of the former, as I've stated several times, the decision is morally neutral...not one of preference and not one that could be justly condemned. In the case of the latter, we must ask the question, "Where did the prior inclination come from?" If, as you say, it is mere habit, it still must have a point of origination. The inclination toward one or the other is dictated by desire, dec.
I will grant that sin goes back to the beginning, but we still do resist sin since most of us do not do all the sin we are capable of doing.
That is why in Romans 1 we are held accountable because we have a conscience and do know right and wrong.
And what part do you think a misread? God does want all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9) My original statement was "Either some then choose against that desire (which as stated begs other questions that must be answered), or all choose Christ and are saved." Obviously all don't choose Christ (which would lead to universal salvation) and I've never seen any indication that you believe such, so like I said I think you just misread what I wrote.
No, you framed that question wrongly.
All those who are condemned do choose against God, choosing to follow another desire (Jn.3:19) over the desire for God (Psa.10)
I have not seen that done yet. I have seen a lot of straw man arguments against Arminians, but according to what both Arminus and Wesley actually taught (both believing in God's control of history), the Arminians/Wesley/Baptist view is based on clear scripture, that God loves His creation and has allowed rational creatures to make irrational decisions against Him, just as we do when we sin. Straw man arguments come in two flavors: intentional and unintentional. The intentional ones stem from intellectual dishonesty, the unintentional from a lack of understanding the original position. I think the latter are mischaracterized as the former a little too often, much to the detriment of civil conversation. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt:)
Thank you.
Your 'proof-texts' can be handled quite easily, but in order for the Calvinists to deal with those above, they have to either twist them, or appeal to a 'secret will' That's funny...we Calvinists look at your proof-texts the same way:) This particular thread wasn't intended to continue the same old debate over those select texts pointed to by both sides, so I'm not going to go over that ground again, at least not until we've gotten through the issue at hand.
I never saw an Arminian appeal to a 'secret will'!
It is you are demanding 'full understanding' You want an explaination of the 'irrational', which cannot be made, except that man wanted to do it! The will makes a choice between various desires and weighs them and decides based on different prefences. This is why some people spend all the money they make and some others invest and save it. Many different motives can go into the same action. And this is what kills me about the argument, dec! If I'm demanding to know why a man chooses the way he does, I'm unreasonable. I'm just supposed to accept that some choose one way and some another without thought to where that motivation originated. But when I take the same approach with God...when I accept that He chooses to elect some according to His own choices/desires/etc...I'm again being unreasonable?!?
Yes, because you want us to think that it is still man who is choosing!
That is what the issue is really about, who is doing the choosing.
Now, according to your view, man is choosing since he is acting according to how he wants, yet it is really God who is 'pulling the strings' so to speak.
Still, despite that, man is to be held responsible for something he has no control of.
Now, as for my positon, the choices a man makes are based on a mydrid of factors with the final decider being his own will which judges all the factors and makes a decision.
It is his decision to make, based on evalution of the facts
Regarding the above statements, you still haven't/cannot answer a) WHY man wanted to do it, b) HOW those 'different preferences' came about, or c) where those different motives originated. As created beings these are essential points!
The Bible is very clear that God is not responsible for sin (James 1:13) yet, we still do so!
So, when we are tempted, we give into our lust and it conceives sin, we make a decision based on a desire of our Flesh, and have to resist the desire of the Holy Spirit who'lusteth against the flesh' (Gal.5:17).
Now, either God is lying and He does want you to sin, or it is your own will that is making the decision to sin and choose against God!
Fine, the final decider is the will of man. Man's will is subject to varying factors which it must weigh and finally make a decision. That decision is a real choice that it makes. Ok. Now to what types of 'factors' are you referring?
There are many factors which influence choices, both physical and cultural.
Yet these only influence the choices, they are not their determinates, the will is.
Amen!
Thank you for stating that. Most Arminians don't, in the many, many posts I've seen. The question is, when did God give man that ability? Was it there all along, or was the ability given when God called him? That is important. As I see it, Arminians argue for man having that ability to choose God without regard to God's Election or calling. I believe that man cannot choose God UNLESS God first chooses him.
All choices are limited, but that does not mean that they are not still choices even if limited to only two alternatives!
Yes, but the Arminians I've encountered set up a hue and cry the moment I, or any other Calvinist, states that for the sinner, the alternatives are not to choose or reject God. Without God having first chosen the sinner and opening his eyes and ears to the Gospel, the sinner cannot choose God, nor does he want to. That is the heart of the matter. Choosing God is not one of the alternatives for him.
Even if all that were true, the fact is that Romans 5 makes it very clear that we are dead in Adam but all savable by the Second Adam (Rom.5:18)
What do you mean,"even if all that were true"...of course it's true! It's God's Word! Jesus' work on the cross is sufficient for all whom God calls. It is efficacious only for those whom God calls. Show me where it says any different.
Adding other external factors? I want to be clear on this. Do you think that external factors, such as childhood experience, church experience, emotional problems, substance abuse, etc. influence man's salvific decision at all? I know that the will makes the decision, I'm just trying to understand what you think that decision is derived from.
I never saw an Arminian appeal to a 'secret will'!
You've appealed to one in just about every post. You just don't see it for what it is. That's what I'm trying to get at:)
Now, according to your view, man is choosing since he is acting according to how he wants, yet it is really God who is 'pulling the strings' so to speak. Still, despite that, man is to be held responsible for something he has no control of.
WRONG! Man is condemned for his sinfulness. This is his state BY DEFAULT. He is incapable of not sinning. Man is not condemned because he didn't make some one-time choice the right way. He's born already condemned!
Now, as for my positon, the choices a man makes are based on a mydrid of factors with the final decider being his own will which judges all the factors and makes a decision. It is his decision to make, based on evalution of the facts.
So, does everyone receive all the facts they need? And if so, again why do some not come to the correct conclusion?
There are many factors which influence choices, both physical and cultural. Yet these only influence the choices, they are not their determinates, the will is.
If they do not affect the outcome, then they do not influence. Period.
LOL!
Then why do you continue to insist that we believe, not what we profess to believe, but the straw man you need us to believe in order to prop up your Arminianism?
Jean
Then why do you continue to insist that we believe, not what we profess to believe, but the straw man you need us to believe in order to prop up your Calvinism?
You can LOL all you want Jean. It's not my fault you guys can't see the holes in your construct.
Can you decode this for me?
Roughly translated: "Dang, you figured us out. Now what do we do?"
Adding all kinds of factors, including evaluation of those various factors, both external and internal.
I know that the will makes the decision, I'm just trying to understand what you think that decision is derived from.
As Thiessen states,
Man's part and God's part seem to be brought together in Jn.1:12-13...Man has the grace to accept Him or reject Him ....God's grace enables man to accept Christ, but it does not constrain man to accept Christ.... As a man shows the least willingless to obey God, He gives man repentence and faith. Jesus asked the man with the withered hand to stretch it forth; and as he attempted to do that which Christ asked him to do, he received the power to do it (Matt.12:13). This view of the will upholds the soverignity of God, and the same time leaves a man personally responsible creature for his perdition,if he does not 'will to do his will' (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p.231)
Thus, the content of the 'will' is the persons own view of reality and truth, he must want the truth, which is what the laws of Nature are suppose to lead one to. (Psa.19, Rom.1).
I never saw an Arminian appeal to a 'secret will'! You've appealed to one in just about every post. You just don't see it for what it is. That's what I'm trying to get at:)
No, an evaulation of reality by an individual who God has given a will to, a will strong enough to reject Him, despite grace, is not a 'secret will' but one that the Bible constantly makes reference to, (Ps.10, Rom.10:21, Acts 7:51, Matt.23:37)
Or, those 'will's weren't really resisting God, He just said that! :>)
Now, according to your view, man is choosing since he is acting according to how he wants, yet it is really God who is 'pulling the strings' so to speak. Still, despite that, man is to be held responsible for something he has no control of. WRONG! Man is condemned for his sinfulness. This is his state BY DEFAULT. He is incapable of not sinning. Man is not condemned because he didn't make some one-time choice the right way. He's born already condemned!
Read Rom.5:18 and tell me how that condemnation was handled.
Now the only thing that keeps a man out of heaven is rejection of God by not accepting the free gift by faith (Jn.14:6)
Moreover, no one denies that all men deserve death, however, the question is why some are saved when all could be saved but aren't (despite what God states in Scripture).
This is what makes the Calvinists run to the Secret Will, the Scriptures!
Now, as for my positon, the choices a man makes are based on a mydrid of factors with the final decider being his own will which judges all the factors and makes a decision. It is his decision to make, based on evalution of the facts. So, does everyone receive all the facts they need? And if so, again why do some not come to the correct conclusion?
Yes, all do receive enough revelation to make fair choice to have desire to know God, even though they must wait for God to reveal Himself to them.
Some come to correct conclusions because they see the truth as the truth.
Thus, if one wants to know the truth, God will get it to him.
If he for his own reasons, does not want to know God (Ps.10) God will not force Himself on him.
There are many factors which influence choices, both physical and cultural. Yet these only influence the choices, they are not their determinates, the will is. If they do not affect the outcome, then they do not influence. Period.
No, an influence is just a power, one that can be resisted if one is influenced by something else.
Thus, our flesh is one influence, while the Power of the Holy Spirit is another.
Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other, which is decided by our own will choosing between the two.
So, let us get to the nitty-gritty, when you sin, whose will are you doing, God's or your own?
That's what I thought it meant! LOL!
God must initiate the grace.
Both Wesley and Arminus held that.
The only difference is that they believed that one could say 'no' to the call and reject it.
It was the Pelegians who stated that man could move towards God under some system of works.
All choices are limited, but that does not mean that they are not still choices even if limited to only two alternatives! Yes, but the Arminians I've encountered set up a hue and cry the moment I, or any other Calvinist, states that for the sinner, the alternatives are not to choose or reject God. Without God having first chosen the sinner and opening his eyes and ears to the Gospel, the sinner cannot choose God, nor does he want to. That is the heart of the matter. Choosing God is not one of the alternatives for him.
Choosing God is not an alternative for Him until God gives Him light and shows him the alternatives between darkness and light.
Thus, at that point, man can reject the call of the Holy Spirit, who is shedding light into the soul, the entrance of thy word giveth light...(Psa.119:30)
Even if all that were true, the fact is that Romans 5 makes it very clear that we are dead in Adam but all savable by the Second Adam (Rom.5:18) What do you mean,"even if all that were true"...of course it's true! It's God's Word! Jesus' work on the cross is sufficient for all whom God calls.
Yes, and God calls all men to Him (Jn.12:32)
It is efficacious only for those whom God calls. Show me where it says any different.
Jn.3:16, Rom.5:18, 1Jn.2:2, Heb.2:9 are passages that show that all men are savable because Christ died for all men.
1Tim.2:4 and 2Pet.3:9 show that God wants all men to be saved, Jn.3:39 and Rom.1:21 shows why those who Christ died for aren't saved.
'ye would not' (Matt.23:37)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.