Dominion vs determinism 3

[JonC]

I like Picirilli in that he seems aware that you can come to the end of theology pretty easily. And I don't think that should be a problem if one is using their theological system as a framework, and a help in fencing you from going off too far in a wrong direction. For example, in a discussion of whether all events are determined by God (which he acknowledges as true) doesn't that make history and all of life "some sort of predetermined rehearsal after the fact, merely playing out in motion what has already been settled. To do that is to miss the whole message of the Bible, which is that God deals with us in time an space. He speaks and we obey or disobey, and he responds accordingly when we do. He sets before us life and death now and we choose now. Is there a sense in which he 'decided' to do all these things in eternity? Yes. But he did not do them then ; he does them now. And he does them now in response to what we do."

That is excellent practical advice. Whether it really works as a way to philosophically reconcile sovereignty and real human free will I sincerely doubt.

I enjoy reading people who can present their positions without arguing against other positions. It is fairly uncommon these days. Picirilli did a very good job. Jonathan Edwards did as well (in Fredom of the Will).

 

[JonC]

One reason I believe free-will cannot be assumed to be libertarian free-will is the forum in which this thread is posted (Calvinism vs Arminianism).

Arminianism obviously does not advocate libertarian free-will. Instead it maintains human free agency exists throughout salvation (man is influenced by the flesh and by the Spirit).

@DaveXR650 brings up like pertaining free-will, and it is certainly true that some within free-will theology (not Arminianism) believe that man can, of his own uninfluenced nature, choose God.

Among this minority sect some still leave room for divine influence in terms of man retaining an element of God's image in their nature (that natural man innately struggles between right and wrong, between two opposing desires).

Søren Kierkegaard famously discussed this in Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If I am offered the choice between tea and coffee, do I have 'libertarian free will' or is my free will overturned by the fact that I prefer coffee to tea?
If men are offered the choice between sin and righeousness, do they have 'libertarian free will' or is their free will overturned by the fact that they prefer sin?
John 3:19. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men preferred darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.'

What is needed is a change in men and women so radical that is can only be described as a new birth - a birth of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). 'I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them' (Ezekiel 36:25-27).

 

[JonC]

If I am offered the choice between tea and coffee, do I have 'libertarian free will' or is my free will overturned by the fact that I prefer coffee to tea?
If men are offered the choice between sin and righeousness, do they have 'libertarian free will' or is their free will overturned by the fact that they prefer sin?
John 3:19. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men preferred darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.'

What is needed is a change in men and women so radical that is can only be described as a new birth - a birth of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). 'I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them' (Ezekiel 36:25-27).

They do not have libertarian free will. Even among atheists there is a dichotomy between desires and a choice must be made.

A choice between tea and coffee? I would probably choose coffee as I like coffee better than tea. But on occasions I do choose tea. Obviously out desires affect the choices we make.

That is why I say that Arminianism does not even come close to suggesting libertarian free will.


Generally we are talking about salvation (not coffee or tea). So let's look at it.

Arminianism (and most free-will theologies) hold that natural man will only choose to reject God because they are "flesh". But the Spirit works within man in such a way as to influence their desires (by the Spirit men can choose God).

That said, man has these two competing influences (the flesh and the Spirit). Man freely chooses one of these two paths.

That is not libertarian free will as both choices are influenced choices freely chosen. Free-will is the ability to choose between two opposing options.

 

[DaveXR650]

Arminianism (and most free-will theologies) hold that natural man will only choose to reject God because they are "flesh". But the Spirit works within man in such a way as to influence their desires (by the Spirit men can choose God).

I don't really have much against true Arminian free will but let me raise one question. If you really believe that natural man will only choose to reject God then you do believe in total inability and are an almost Calvinist, at the least. In other words, if the "Spirit works within man" in an essential manner, even if it is influence or conviction, if you admit that it is true that without it coming to Christ was not going to happen - then in practice there is not much difference between that and the Calvinist idea that one is born again and that results in a person coming to Christ. For in both cases you have a natural man lost, with no ability to respond on his own.

And then the hedging begins. What the Arminian objects to is God being sovereign in this to the extent that the only real difference between the one saved and the other lost is God's own choice in bestowing grace no matter the type of grace, whether conviction and enlightenment or being born again. They get around this by saying a certain amount of grace is bestowed universally as "prevenient grace" and it is of an enabling and persuasive nature - with man being able to reject it. But if that is the case, to me once you say it is universally bestowed you are back to all men then being given "enough" grace and the choice is then up to them, which to me is no different than a modern free willer who recognizes this as being a needless concession to Calvinism (from a time when it meant something to be called a heretic by Calvinists) and thus they go ahead and say what all free willers really believe - it is truly up to you, and you have all you need to properly decide for Christ and are responsible if you don't.

And please don't think I am being dismissive of Arminianism. I admit that I think there indeed does have to be at some level, whether God supplies convicting and enabling grace or if it's a regenerating grace - if there is not at some level, an ability to thwart this to the extent of losing the opportunity to be saved, then I cannot satisfy myself that this does not lead to a real possibility of God being blamed - as he is the only cause.
I know that a good Calvinist will say "who are you to reply against God", which is true enough if that was all we had. But from scripture, and from Puritan Calvinist preaching even, I don't think we have much evidence that God is doing it like that. There just is too much evidence that men are consciously and with full understanding either choosing unbelief, or preferring the advantages of the world and pleasures of sin more than Christ- and are truly making a free will decision to do so. I would welcome discussion on this because I do not have a settled position myself.

 

[DaveXR650]

If I am offered the choice between tea and coffee, do I have 'libertarian free will' or is my free will overturned by the fact that I prefer coffee to tea?
If men are offered the choice between sin and righeousness, do they have 'libertarian free will' or is their free will overturned by the fact that they prefer sin?

And so you are right, and here is where the precise definition of free will is important or discussion is meaningless. I say, as did Edwards, that men indeed have real free will but that as creatures, our choices are results of actual motivations. So, the fact that they prefer sin does indeed mean that they infallibly will not choose Christ - but the choice is because of their own willful inclinations and therefore they can be blamed in spite of the fact that they could have made no other choice.

And that is where the free willer flips his lid because they insist that they "could have" made the other choice. And here's where it gets a little difficult. Yes, technically they could have made another choice - but not without their will being different. Therefore it is meaningless to insist upon a power to choose the other when the simple fact is one cannot willfully choose the other because they don't want to. People say "well, you're just tongue tying everyone and talking in circles". Maybe. But what I say is that libertarian free will can only be true in some cases, like when something is really random and if the choice has no meaning, for instance. Otherwise it is a fantasy and what is really being defended is our conscience, which is real and which we all have, and which is also tainted and affected by our natures.

At any rate, classic Arminianism is common as to getting saved at least. But it tends to drift into libertarian free will, as their own literature exposes when read extensively. And honestly, Calvinism tended to drift more toward the deterministic extreme as well.

 

[Ben1445]

If I am offered the choice between tea and coffee, do I have 'libertarian free will' or is my free will overturned by the fact that I prefer coffee to tea?
If men are offered the choice between sin and righeousness, do they have 'libertarian free will' or is their free will overturned by the fact that they prefer sin?
John 3:19. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men preferred darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.'

What is needed is a change in men and women so radical that is can only be described as a new birth - a birth of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). 'I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them' (Ezekiel 36:25-27).

I also prefer coffee. But I also will choose tea over coffee at times.
Your illustration does not resonate with me.

If you are spiritually alive, born again, you don’t need salvation. Death is already conquered. If sin has no power, why do you need salvation.

Life comes with salvation at the same time. There is no separation.

 

[JonC]

And so you are right, and here is where the precise definition of free will is important or discussion is meaningless. I say, as did Edwards, that men indeed have real free will but that as creatures, our choices are results of actual motivations. So, the fact that they prefer sin does indeed mean that they infallibly will not choose Christ - but the choice is because of their own willful inclinations and therefore they can be blamed in spite of the fact that they could have made no other choice.

And that is where the free willer flips his lid because they insist that they "could have" made the other choice. And here's where it gets a little difficult. Yes, technically they could have made another choice - but not without their will being different. Therefore it is meaningless to insist upon a power to choose the other when the simple fact is one cannot willfully choose the other because they don't want to. People say "well, you're just tongue tying everyone and talking in circles". Maybe. But what I say is that libertarian free will can only be true in some cases, like when something is really random and if the choice has no meaning, for instance. Otherwise it is a fantasy and what is really being defended is our conscience, which is real and which we all have, and which is also tainted and affected by our natures.

At any rate, classic Arminianism is common as to getting saved at least. But it tends to drift into libertarian free will, as their own literature exposes when read extensively. And honestly, Calvinism tended to drift more toward the deterministic extreme as well.

You are talking about Classic Arminianism without actually addressing Classic Arminianism.

Article 1

"That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus..."

Article 3

"That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, 'Without me you can do nothing.'"

Article 4

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ."

Anybody reading this thread in an honest manner should be able to discern that Classic Arminianism does not hold that man can, of himself and without influence, choose God (or even that which is good). There is absolutely no way to honestly ascribe to Classic Arminianism (which, BTW, is not a position I hold) as advocating libertarian free will.


Do you not see why I say you are being intellectually dishonest (just as those who generalize Calvinism into one extreme and unified position)?

Again, I hold neither Calvinism, Classic Arminianism, Free-Will Theology, or Weslyan Arminianism.

I just get tired of reading posts arguing against an opposing view (whether Calvinism or Arminianism) that misrepresented the view they are trying to oppose.

 

[JonC]

I also prefer coffee. But I also will choose tea over coffee at times.
Your illustration does not resonate with me.

If you are spiritually alive, born again, you don’t need salvation. Death is already conquered. If sin has no power, why do you need salvation.

Life comes with salvation at the same time. There is no separation.

@Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 are not interested in legitimate discussion. Their priority is in forwarding Calvinism. While it may be sinful to misrepresent a view I believe both view it as a lesser evil than allowing an opposing view to be considered.

The basic doctrine of Classic Arminianism (what holds the theology together yet distinct and separates it from Calvinism) is the Five Articles of Remonstrance (the Articles towards which the Five Points of Calvinism responded).


Article 3

"That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, 'Without me you can do nothing.'"

Article 4

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ."

But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places).

What we have in Clasdic Arminianism is legitimate but never libertarian free will.

God draws men, influences men, but these men ultimately have to decide between two influences.


I do not affirm Calvinism or Classic Arminianism (or any Arminianistic theology). But I do believe we have to be honest towards every belief.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC.

One problem with what you are saying is that I agree with everything you are quoting above in those articles which the Arminians put out. The problem I have is differentiating it from Calvinism. The only area where I notice a real difference is in the idea that you can resist this essential grace. And even that I personally agree with. As to my priority being to be "forwarding Calvinism" I am at best an uneasy 4 point Calvinist, although as I have said repeatedly, I can go along with any Calvinist who believes there is a genuine offer of salvation to anyone who hears the gospel. And I have also correctly pointed out that some Calvinists on here don't like the idea of a real and true offer of the gospel to anyone who hears it.

It is simply a fact that Edwards was arguing against a more free will approach, more of a semi-Pelagian approach to these issues than classic Arminianism. And it is a fact that the most popular free will advocates currently, Dr. Flowers with his Provisionism, and Dr. Lennox with his popular Youtube and book, accept libertarian free will as the true explanation of free will. And quotes from Dr. Picirilli show that the tendency to move in that direction is there even with him. As a result it is indeed my opinion that free will, as any of us understand it, invariably moves toward libertarian free will. I explained why above, honestly. If you can refute my logic go ahead. Charges of intellectual dishonesty don't help your case no matter how often you repeat it.

 

[DaveXR650]

I also prefer coffee. But I also will choose tea over coffee at times.
Your illustration does not resonate with me.

But each time you choose coffee, or tea, at that time there was only one choice you could have made and had that been your choice. The time you chose tea was because the influences pushing you to tea were greater than coffee that time. Maybe you noticed that the coffee had been on "brew" for 2 hours and you thought it might taste burnt, but you never make a choice without prior influences which in fact, determine your free will choice. And this is what those who advocate libertarian free will deny. They insist that for it to be a free will choice "they could have chosen the other" but in fact that is only technically true, looking back as a possibility. The truth is, the information you had, combined with your various and often competing inclinations resulted in one choice you could make - unless one of those precursors were to change.

And like I discussed above, I personally tend to like classic Arminianism, but the problem is that based on the truth of how your will works, the Arminian argument, pleasant and self satisfying as it is for those of us who chose wisely, fails to account for that power we insist on keeping to refuse such grace - when they just previously admitted that you have to be given the inclinations to come to Christ in the first place and would not do so without "grace". So they have a grace which is essential, and by definition effectual in those that are saved, yet can be resisted in the case of those who are not saved. How is this any different than Calvinism's general call to everyone, the call that is effectual to the elect but refused by the non-elect? I wish someone would explain that.

 

[DaveXR650]

What we have in Clasdic Arminianism is legitimate but never libertarian free will.

Here's what I mean when I say classic Arminian free will historically, and currently, always has a tendency to move to libertarian free will. So Jon says the above. Then he follows with this:

God draws men, influences men, but these men ultimately have to decide between two influences.

This would work if there really was some type of "self" or conscience or inner arbiter that can in a detached manner, evaluate the two influences and decide. But there is no such thing. The various influences themselves and our proclivities, combined together make up our actual will, which the Arminians agree is indeed the very problem:

"That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good

In other words, they say themselves that our very "decider", conscience, arbiter or will itself is the very thing that is defective, and then go right on and claim that this depraved free will is what is supposed to figure out which influence to choose between. And thus you are back where you started, with a demand that indeed there be a "something" at least that can properly choose the right course of action. If there is such a something in us, which is still capable of making a proper decision between right and wrong influences then that indeed is an autonomous, libertarian free will.

In the example of the coffee and tea above, the demand is not that you can actually choose what you wish, which we all grant, but that you are totally in charge of what it is you wish! That is libertarian free will. Twist it around all you want but in the end, Arminianism demands an independent "chooser" that can evaluate the propositions of the gospel, which according to their own system cannot overwhelm this sacred thing we hold so dear, our free wills.

So as much as I like the "feel" of the Arminian explanation, it may well be that those who say that men must have the ability to evaluate on their own, our situation, our sinfulness and our need of Christ and we have all been given the ability to do so in an unimpeded, uninfluenced, libertarian way (at least to the satisfaction of God in holding us personally responsible) that therefore this ability to discern these things and choose completely is a God given ability assumed throughout scripture - this may be a more simple and sensible option than Calvinism or Arminianism. I know it is rapidly gaining popularity.

So there should be enough there to discuss. At least to put to rest this false charge:

@Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 are not interested in legitimate discussion. Their priority is in forwarding Calvinism. While it may be sinful to misrepresent a view I believe both view it as a lesser evil than allowing an opposing view to be considered.

 

[JonC]

@JonC.

One problem with what you are saying is that I agree with everything you are quoting above in those articles which the Arminians put out. The problem I have is differentiating it from Calvinism. The only area where I notice a real difference is in the idea that you can resist this essential grace. And even that I personally agree with. As to my priority being to be "forwarding Calvinism" I am at best an uneasy 4 point Calvinist, although as I have said repeatedly, I can go along with any Calvinist who believes there is a genuine offer of salvation to anyone who hears the gospel. And I have also correctly pointed out that some Calvinists on here don't like the idea of a real and true offer of the gospel to anyone who hears it.

It is simply a fact that Edwards was arguing against a more free will approach, more of a semi-Pelagian approach to these issues than classic Arminianism. And it is a fact that the most popular free will advocates currently, Dr. Flowers with his Provisionism, and Dr. Lennox with his popular Youtube and book, accept libertarian free will as the true explanation of free will. And quotes from Dr. Picirilli show that the tendency to move in that direction is there even with him. As a result it is indeed my opinion that free will, as any of us understand it, invariably moves toward libertarian free will. I explained why above, honestly. If you can refute my logic go ahead. Charges of intellectual dishonesty don't help your case no matter how often you repeat it.

The problem with the free will issue (one of the differences) is whether or not one can resist God's grace.

But it is not a coincidence that the Calvinistic reply to the Five Articles were five expressions of doctrine (the Canons of Dort, the Doctrines of Grace, which some summarize as five points).

When you examine the Articles of the Remonstrance or the Canons of Dort each system ties together into a coherent whole.

If the only difference you see is that grace can be resisted then you need to read the Articles more carefully, perhaps alongside the Calvinistic response.

 

[JonC]

Here's what I mean when I say classic Arminian free will historically, and currently, always has a tendency to move to libertarian free will. So Jon says the above. Then he follows with this:

This would work if there really was some type of "self" or conscience or inner arbiter that can in a detached manner, evaluate the two influences and decide. But there is no such thing. The various influences themselves and our proclivities, combined together make up our actual will, which the Arminians agree is indeed the very problem:

In other words, they say themselves that our very "decider", conscience, arbiter or will itself is the very thing that is defective, and then go right on and claim that this depraved free will is what is supposed to figure out which influence to choose between. And thus you are back where you started, with a demand that indeed there be a "something" at least that can properly choose the right course of action. If there is such a something in us, which is still capable of making a proper decision between right and wrong influences then that indeed is an autonomous, libertarian free will.

In the example of the coffee and tea above, the demand is not that you can actually choose what you wish, which we all grant, but that you are totally in charge of what it is you wish! That is libertarian free will. Twist it around all you want but in the end, Arminianism demands an independent "chooser" that can evaluate the propositions of the gospel, which according to their own system cannot overwhelm this sacred thing we hold so dear, our free wills.

So as much as I like the "feel" of the Arminian explanation, it may well be that those who say that men must have the ability to evaluate on their own, our situation, our sinfulness and our need of Christ and we have all been given the ability to do so in an unimpeded, uninfluenced, libertarian way (at least to the satisfaction of God in holding us personally responsible) that therefore this ability to discern these things and choose completely is a God given ability assumed throughout scripture - this may be a more simple and sensible option than Calvinism or Arminianism. I know it is rapidly gaining popularity.

So there should be enough there to discuss. At least to put to rest this false charge:

You are making the mistake of evaluating one aspect (free will) divorced from the opposing context.

YOU say "there is no such thing" as an an objective inner arbiter, therefore Clasdic Arminianism affirms libertarian free will. That is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty.

Classical Arminianism holds that one can be influenced by two opposing forces (God for the good and the flesh or natural man for the bad). An external arbiter is not necessary because one is not one's will or desire. Therefore a man can be presented with two opposing paths, be influenced (even be equally influenced) by both and make a choice. Man's desire (a stronger, weaker, or equal desire) is ultimately not the facility by which a decision is made.

The ONLY way to read the Five Articles and determine Classical Arminianism affirms libertarian free will is to divorce Classical Arminian free will from Classical Arminianism. That, by definition, is dishonest.

What you are taking for granted is one philosophical idea in a very broad and diverse philosophical topic. You ignore Aquinas (the will always chooses what is determined to be good), Kant's freedom of will, Schopenhauer (survivism) and settle on something more akin to Nietzsche without even defending the assumption.


But the main problem with your conclusions is evaluating Arminian free will outside of its context. That position does NOT suppose we can choose in a libertarian way (it supposes we are influenced both by the flesh and by the Spirit...two influences at odds with one another).

In speaking of Classical Arminianism the idea that man can have two opposing influences and internally choose between the two (rather than the Calvinistic controlling will) IS A PART of Arminian free will because it is how the will is viewed within Classical Arminianism.

My pointing out that your post is intellectually dishonest is not a slight to you but to your conclusions. You did not use an honest method.

 

[Ben1445]

But each time you choose coffee, or tea, at that time there was only one choice you could have made and had that been your choice. The time you chose tea was because the influences pushing you to tea were greater than coffee that time. Maybe you noticed that the coffee had been on "brew" for 2 hours and you thought it might taste burnt, but you never make a choice without prior influences which in fact, determine your free will choice.

My coffee goes into a carafe and is never left on the burner.
What you call influences are nothing more than circumstances.

And this is what those who advocate libertarian free will deny. They insist that for it to be a free will choice "they could have chosen the other" but in fact that is only technically true, looking back as a possibility. The truth is, the information you had, combined with your various and often competing inclinations resulted in one choice you could make - unless one of those precursors were to change.

But the truth of the matter is that even with all of the circumstances that do have an influence on the perception of the situation, I am still able to choose one or the other.
This discussion is a strange one in my opinion. I feel like I am fighting the idea that we could not have the will to choose unless we have the ability to change the coffee or tea into lemonade.

And like I discussed above, I personally tend to like classic Arminianism, but the problem is that based on the truth of how your will works, the Arminian argument, pleasant and self satisfying as it is for those of us who chose wisely, fails to account for that power we insist on keeping to refuse such grace - when they just previously admitted that you have to be given the inclinations to come to Christ in the first place and would not do so without "grace".

There would be no choice except for the grace of God. Because God has given another option beside sin, there is a choice.

So they have a grace which is essential, and by definition effectual in those that are saved, yet can be resisted in the case of those who are not saved. How is this any different than Calvinism's general call to everyone, the call that is effectual to the elect but refused by the non-elect? I wish someone would explain that.

Grace is what saves us, not what brings us to what saves us.
I’m not trying to answer your question. I’m no deep studier of what you have read or quoted.
I don’t try to combine the two or compare the two. In the form they are most often presented, I disagree with them both.

 

[DaveXR650]

The problem with the free will issue (one of the differences) is whether or not one can resist God's grace.

But it is not a coincidence that the Calvinistic reply to the Five Articles were five expressions of doctrine (the Canons of Dort, the Doctrines of Grace, which some summarize as five points).

When you examine the Articles of the Remonstrance or the Canons of Dort each system ties together into a coherent whole.

If the only difference you see is that grace can be resisted then you need to read the Articles more carefully, perhaps alongside the Calvinistic response.

Yes. Like you say, the problem I am discussing is "the free will issue". It does not mean that I am unaware of other issues. I am just talking about coming to salvation at this point.

 

[DaveXR650]

Classical Arminianism holds that one can be influenced by two opposing forces (God for the good and the flesh or natural man for the bad). An external arbiter is not necessary because one is not one's will or desire. Therefore a man can be presented with two opposing paths, be influenced (even be equally influenced) by both and make a choice. Man's desire (a stronger, weaker, or equal desire) is ultimately not the facility by which a decision is made.

Yeah. Here we go. The arbiter which actually is internal is you. What you are doing is saying that there are these influences which this impartial free will evaluates and then chooses from. That's not wrong, it's just not complete. Calvinism says that the reason you don't come to Christ by yourself is that your arbiter or will has a proclivity to embrace the influences of the flesh and reject the better influences.

"That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good

As you can see, Arminianism agrees totally. Specifically, they agree with Calvinists that by and of himself he can neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good.

That position does NOT suppose we can choose in a libertarian way (it supposes we are influenced both by the flesh and by the Spirit...two influences at odds with one another).

That's true. That's why I said that this is identical to Calvinism at that point of natural inability. In fact, I like the way the Arminians like Picirilli or Forlines word these things better than the way the Calvinists do. However, when it comes to intellectual honestly, the Arminians run into a problem when they insist that this saving influence can be successfully resisted. Because by saying that they are saying that this gracious "influence" is not the only thing leading to our salvation - there still has to be an inner self or will that indeed does have enough of it's own virtue to at least consent to salvation or choose wisely from the influences. If you leave it there then fine. But the fact is if you follow the logic in defending Arminianism you end up admitting to a more libertarian view of free will because you are always reserving that small, but uninfluenced apex decision maker at the very core of who you are - which indeed is deciding for Christ.

So try to not misunderstand me. They may be right. Lennox may be right. But my point is this, if God's grace, selective or prevenient, is not the deciding factor, you are either an Arminian who has an unsurmountable contradiction with your system, or you move on to a libertarian free will which solves all the logical problems at least. I'm not picking at you. You say you don't believe either so why take offense. But to me, that is an insurmountable problem for the Classic Arminian.

 

[DaveXR650]

My coffee goes into a carafe and is never left on the burner.
What you call influences are nothing more than circumstances.

Circumstances are a big part of influences. Say you find yourself on a business trip, in a strange town, no one with you, and a beautiful woman engages you in conversation and seems unusually interested. That's a circumstance and an influence. Say you are required, as a sales rep, to take extended trips with a female co-worker, with whom you share time, meals, strategy and so on. That is a circumstance as well as an influence. Now your Christian faith, the Holy Spirit, your plan to call your family to end the day, your resolutions and so on are also influences and can overcome your circumstance for sure. But also you have influences that in themselves are neither good nor evil. If you are a man you have God given attractiveness to the opposite sex for instance. But here's my point, while it is just fine to say in common language "I weigh all the influences and I choose my decision", the fact is all those influences, proclivities, circumstances, legitimate needs, all together, are what will determine your decision in the matter. You have no reliable inner decisionmaker of your own origin or determination that you can depend on. Your will itself, as both Arminianism and Calvinism both claim, is corrupt and unreliable. But Calvinism is probably a little more accurate in the implications of all this as it relates to our salvation.

 

[Ben1445]

Circumstances are a big part of influences.

I did acknowledge this. But circumstances are not living influences that are consciously attempting to move us.

Say you find yourself on a business trip, in a strange town, no one with you, and a beautiful woman engages you in conversation and seems unusually interested. That's a circumstance and an influence. Say you are required, as a sales rep, to take extended trips with a female co-worker, with whom you share time, meals, strategy and so on. That is a circumstance as well as an influence. Now your Christian faith, the Holy Spirit, your plan to call your family to end the day, your resolutions and so on are also influences and can overcome your circumstance for sure. But also you have influences that in themselves are neither good nor evil. If you are a man you have God given attractiveness to the opposite sex for instance. But here's my point, while it is just fine to say in common language "I weigh all the influences and I choose my decision", the fact is all those influences, proclivities, circumstances, legitimate needs, all together, are what will determine your decision in the matter. You have no reliable inner decisionmaker of your own origin or determination that you can depend on. Your will itself, as both Arminianism and Calvinism both claim, is corrupt and unreliable. But Calvinism is probably a little more accurate in the implications of all this as it relates to our salvation.

I understand that what I am about to say is addressing something that is not what you intended to say. But I think there are some underlying philosophical errors.
We do have a reliable inner decision maker. There is no reason for anyone in the circumstances that you provided to claim to be a victim of circumstance. If you don’t have any choice, there is no sin.
Our decision maker may not always make the right decision, but it will always make a decision. It is a fallacy to say that anyone makes a decision if they do not have a choice. By saying that we make decisions is acknowledging an independent will.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is no reason for anyone in the circumstances that you provided to claim to be a victim of circumstance. If you don’t have any choice, there is no sin.

There was an actual philosophical debate on that very subject a few years ago which we have a film recording of.

By saying that we make decisions is acknowledging an independent will.

I guess the question comes down to how independent it is and how corrupt the will itself is. Now I'm not saying that there is not a level of our own will that is certainly "it's own" in the sense that God can justly judge it. I think the Calvinists are saying that while that is true, it is also true that as a matter of record and evidence and scripture this will is so defective that it will not as one of it's free choices, come to God in a real way. And, I think that classic Arminianism says pretty much the same thing.