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.