Double free will and other problems

False analogy. You presume that there is only a certain amount of something that can be given. My position is that all men have such a chance, not a small amount of grace that can be given. Therefore, your argument fails.

No, your view gives preference to those who are selected, while completely passing over those who are not. Does this not also make God a respecter of persons, since some people are endowed with the real ability to say "yes" to Christ, while some are not?

Everyone is not on equal ground in the Calvinist doctrine. There is a population of people where it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to believe. There is another segment where it is IMPOSSIBLE NOT to believe. How can you not see this as unequal ground?

 

And that's it - That's what is happening! You are convinced that I'm a universalist. I think it slipped, for you.

 

Unanswered questions for npetreley

That's a huge jump and it presumes more things than I know how to write.

1. God does not wish anyone to perish.
2. God has allowed through his sovereignty man to have a free will.
3. With such a will, he can choose to accept or reject Him.
4. God, staying true to his creation, allows man to make such a choice.
5. Man often chooses to go to Hell. He does not merely "not choose" Heaven. He chooses one or the other.
6. God sends his Holy Spirit to call all men, in order to draw all men to Him. Some respond and some do not.
7. It is out of his own love, mercy, and justice that he allows those who he has foreknown will never accept Him to live on.
8. God remains faithful to Himself, faithful to humanity, comepletely effective, and uncruel.

What doesn't work with that, since you're convinced my God is ineffective and cruel?

Next...

Simple - Freedom equals the ability to choose God or not. Election - denies the non-elect the ability to freely and truly choose God or not.

Next...

You dropped the argument about my definition of "equal."

And last - you haven't shown how the "robot" argument so contradicts my main argument, which is that all men (except those who have not reached the maturity to make such a decision - as stated in my first post) have an equal chance in that they can all say "yes" or "no."

 

You really haven't been reading, huh? Salvation is not equal. The chance to say "yes" or "no" is - everyone has the same potential to be saved. They all have an equal chance.

The ability to truly say "yes" or "no" is absent in Calvinism. The ability to truly say "yes" or "no" is present in Arminianism. I have argued that equality in chance is dependent on such an ability to be present. Therefore, Calvinism is unequal, and Arminianism is equal. It's not about salvation being universally given, as I have said in every one of my posts. It is that the chance to be saved is universally given - this is found in Arminianism - not in Calvinism.

 

Choose life. Jeremiah's discussion of the potter's wheel. There are many instances of free will found in the Bible.

 

Scott Emerson,

Interesting you should bring up the "potter's wheel".

Calvinists love using Romans 9 as a proof text for Unconditional Election, particularly the illustration of the Potter. However, they usually ignore Jeremiah 18 which also employs the Potter illustration. Why? Presumably because this passage teaches that the "Potter" (God) certainly takes into account the choice of His creatures--to repent or to do evil (vs.7-11). In this passage we have an excellent picture of God's sovereignty (since He IS the Potter) and man's moral responsibility. This is not surprising, since the whole of Scripture affirms both. Therefore, ANY SYSTEM which overemphasizes one truth to the expense of the other is not teaching the whole counsel of God.

 

The difference between Arminianism and Calvinism isn't that Calvinism denies the ability to say yes or no. The difference revolves around whom one credits for the ability to say yes.</font>[/QUOTE]Arminianism agrees that a man can only say "yes" through the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Arminianism states that man has the ability to say "no" to that drawing. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is that those who are "unelect" do not have the ability to say yes.

 

Absolutely, Thomas. In the Arminian system of belief, there is, indeed, a balance between human responsibility and divine sovereignty. God is indeed the potter, but He set rules into motion that he delineates in Jeremiah.

 

Those are instances of instructions and commands. They are not demonstrations of free will or (as others might put it) the inclination or ability to comply.</font>[/QUOTE]Prove it.

 

I reject Calvinism, but I don't believe that every man is blessed with a chance to receive the gospel. However, trying to systematize the word of God only makes it more confusing. After all, look what John Calvin ended up with: Total Depravity = Unconditional Election = Limited Atonement = Irresistible Grace = Perseverance of the Saints. I would like to submit the following to your consideration:

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matthew 23:13)

"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thessalonians 2:16)

These words are inspired by the same God who supposedly died only for a particular number of mankind who were predestinated before the foundation of the world to hear the gospel anyway, so what's it to you? No man will stand before God with an excuse. Jesus Christ is "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:9). Every man has been granted light by God to receive or reject the truth. God knows all things, even those who will betray Him (John 6:64). All infants go to heaven. I don't espouse the whole idea of "the age of accountability." I trust in the judgment of God. Even those who don't have the law, have a conscience to guide them (Romans 2:14, 15). Perhaps God reaches the heathen with the gospel in His time. I don't know. However, the Bible does not reveal God to be the serpent that Calvinism portrays Him to be. God created people, not robots.

"Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel." (Psalms 78:41)

Of course, God could've forced His blessings on the children of Israel. After all, God is sovereign. Mankind limits God by rejecting His gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ.

 

This is the best thread I've seen in this forum. it's about time someone turn the tables and force the free willers to defend themselves. Keep up the good work and don't let them get away with obfuscation.

To cite the "deathblow" thread I'd like to pick up on another logical inconsistency. with respect to the definitions of foreknowledge and foreordainment as they relate to free will I have a difficult time seeing a practical difference.

Free will requires the ability to have chosen otherwise. If we all agree that God is fully sovereign in that He knows the outcome of every scenario, what difference does it make whether He foreordained or foreknew those who would be His children?

The fact is in either case we are left with a world history that could not have been any different because God already knew what would happen. Not only that, we are also left with an unchangeable future because God already knows EVERYTHING that will ever happen.

I really want to see a free willer dance around that one.