Featured How do we define what is good and evil?

As Webdog requested, could you supply my actual quote where I 'exalt choice above God?'

I simply refer you back to the Tozer quote, which you affirmed. "Man’s will is [contra-causually] free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow [contra-causual] moral freedom upon his creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - AW Tozer

This demonstrates my actual view that man's contra-causal freedom is an expression of God's sovereignty, not a denial of it. How impotent is a god whose attributes are threatened by the existence of contra-causually free creatures?

 

By that reasoning then everyone who refuses God's appeal to be reconciled has a perfect excuse for their "choice" to refuse. It wasn't a free choice. It was God's choice. God didn't grant them what they needed to respond to that appeal. You give every unbeliever the perfect excuse for their unbelief. I say they are much more evil than you do. I say they refused despite God's provision, not because of God's lack thereof.

Your view says man refused because they were born that way by God's choice ('not guilty by reason of insanity or 'inability')

My view says man refused because they freely chose that way despite God's choice to love and provide salvation for them (guilty in every way, and without excuse)

 

jbh, I consider you a reasonable and object brother, for the most part, but this is just factually incorrect.

1. Your view has sinners that don't want to believe the gospel because they were born totally unable to willingly believe the gospel due to God's choice to judge mankind for the Fall.

2. Our view has sinners freely (contra-causally free that is) choosing to accept or reject God's genuine appeal to be reconciled to Him. In other words, there is nothing hindering them from accepting God's appeal for them to be reconciled, thus they are completely without excuse for not accepting it.

You must acknowledge that distinction even if you don't agree with our view. Be objective about it and I know you will have to accept this clear distinction and accept the implications as they are.

So, who chose to punish mankind by making us all total depraved because of Adam's sin? Mother Nature?

I'm not trying to be silly, I'm serious. Who, if not God, made that determination? You can try to bury that fact, but it doesn't just go away because you are unwilling to address it.

 

So, you don't believe God is the one who decided that all men would be born totally depraved as a result of the fall? Was that an accident? Chance? I really don't understand what you do with this question? Do you just pretend it doesn't exist?

And, in your system, he chose to punish them by making them to be born totally depraved, right?

Don't need to. If the point above is conceded then the point below is moot

This is a non-sequitur...

You are equating our view that men don't have any excuse because they freely chose to rebel, with your view that God could have irresistibly saved them but didn't. This assumes that our view is that God wanted to irresistibly save everyone but couldn't. That is NOT our view, so this is NOT our problem.

 

I'm not denying that you believe that. I'm just saying that it was God's choice to punish them by making them born totally depraved and thus UNABLE to willingly repent of their sin...according to your system. In your view, Adam's fall resulted in all mankind being punished by God and that punishment was to receive a nature from birth by which they could not willingly repent even when called by God to do so.

How is that not accurate?

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

I affirm that verse. I just reject the Calvinistic interpretation which suggests that death = total inability to respond to a life giving message. I believe the Holy Spirit wrought gospel truth is more powerful than man's natural depravity. God's revelation is more powerful than ANY condition of man, otherwise it wouldn't be very revealing now would it?

You denied the fact that God is the one who chose to make fallen mankind totally depraved and then you seemed to concede that is was God who punished mankind. Which is it?

Can God save everyone irresistibly? Yes.

Notice I put the word 'irresistibly' in there to draw an important distinction. Your system assumes God saves irresistibly our system does not.

So, all you have argued is that because God doesn't choose to irresistibly save every man then those not saved have an excuse? That presumes God doesn't want men to make a contra-causually free choice, but that he wants to save them regardless of their wills, which is an assumed rejection of our premise and thus question begging. I referred to non-sequiter because your logic doesn't follow into our system because we accept contra-causual freedom, while you don't.

No one is 'chickening' away. You just are not understanding your own fallacy. I can point you to a few scholarly articles on this topic if that will help?

Try this: Suppose you are a father of two small boys. You command them both to sit down at the dinner table. One complies but the other does not. Now, you have the ability to physically force him to sit down, but suppose you choose NOT to use physical force and instead tell him that if he chooses not to sit down that he will go to bed without dinner. He continues to rebel and so you send him to bed. Now, suppose I hear about this story and I tell you that you failed and that your son is stronger than you because you wanted him to sit down but he never did. How would you answer? Wouldn't you say something like, "NO, I'm stronger than he is and I COULD have forced him, but that is not what I wanted, I'm the father and I made a choice. I wanted him to freely choose to sit down own his own or suffer the consequences of his disobedience. He chose to rebel so he suffered the consequences. He clearly understood my command and he chose to disobey so he has no excuse."

But suppose I continued arguing with you and said, "No, your sons will is greater than your will and you are weak. You wanted him to obey and he didn't so he is stronger than you. And since you could have forced him to sit down and didn't, he really does have an excuse for not obeying. You could have physically made him sit down but you didn't so that is his excuse for not obeying."

Do you see how preposterous this line of reasoning sounds? That is what you sound like to me right now.

(Note: I KNOW you don't believe God forces people to be saved, that is not the point of the analogy so please don't say it, that doesn't in any way change the point of the analogy)

 

No, it would be libertarian free will or irresistible grace. If you want to use the word 'coercive' fine, but its your word, not mine.

As the NOTE at the bottom said, the 'force' wasn't the point of the analogy. The child being forced in the chair was merely representative of 'irresistible' work of the father as compared to the father allowing the child to respond freely, that is all. I could have made the option of the father putting a medication in the child's drink which makes him want to be compliant. Would that better represent your view? Either way, the POINT of the analogy was to show jbh how his argument regarding the boy being without excuse remains.

 

Right, and 'death' according to Calvinism is interpreted as 'total inability.' Thus, God's determination was to punish all mankind for Adam's sin by making them all to be born totally unable to respond to His appeal to be reconciled. That is your view plain and simple. You can sugar coat it however you'd like but that is what you believe, isn't it? If not, how is it not correct?

Right. And who sets the penalty? You want to avoid that point because you see how it makes God appear and you don't like it. God set the penalty, which in your system, is that mankind CANNOT respond to HIS supposedly genuine appeals for reconciliation, so you have God on the one hand punishing mankind for sinning by making them born unable to repent and on the other hand calling them to repent. It's like disciplining your dog by tying him to the post then later calling him to come to you and then shooting him for not coming. It certainly doesn't put God in a good light which is why you don't want to acknowledge that He is the one who decided the penalty for the fall.

No, I don't understand and neither do you. My argument is against the presumptions of Calvinism which teaches that men CANNOT believe or repent unless made to through an effectual work of God and since I don't accept that presumption the argument wouldn't apply to me. I affirm contra-casual freedom, you don't, so the argument doesn't apply to my view.

Use the analogy to show how that argument would apply to my view? You are not making any sense brother.

You deny that God choosing not to grant someone the ability to believe is a good excuse for unbelief? How?

Willfully? That means two completely different things in our two views. Man's will is determined by God's choice in your view, not the man. Unless a man is first regenerated by God's choice, he is UNABLE from birth to be willing by God's choice, according to your view, thus giving him the perfect excuse.