1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Double free will and other problems

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by npetreley, Jan 25, 2003.

  1. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet another false analogy. You guys love those things, huh? A rock is an object that has no will of its own and is incapable of movement. In the Arminian system, man does have a will that is able to choose or reject God. In fact, it is God who allowed man to have that.

    I would maintain that a better analogy that would fit the Arminian system is the sound of a triangle in the Old West. The bell is ringing, saying, "Come unto me, all you who are weary, and take rest!" Everyone hears the bell, calling them to come partake. Everyone has a chance to say, "Sure! I'm hungry!" or "No, thanks - I'll tend to myself."
     
  2. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very well. First, can we assume that the commands found here and in other passages are real commands? In other words, they are to be obeyed or disobeyed?
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  4. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    And that's precisely why it is a wonderful analogy. If the Arminian system agrees that one cannot "move" toward God without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, then we have as much free will as a rock does to defy gravity on its own steam.
     
  5. Sularis

    Sularis Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    *sigh* oh yes Im so glad that in this thread ALONE free will is under attack!

    *mutters something that would be edited out*

    The problem with your concept of foreknowledge is that youve assumed everything has happened, and we're just re-runs

    You assume a single linear timeline - That is a pretty poor assumption

    My God is active in new creative acts, My God is still active in the redemption of mankind

    My God is not sitting on the couch watching a VCR

    God knows all possibilties - God acts on all possibilities - God limits possibilities - but there is always more then one possibility except at the beginning and the end.

    Let me actually deal with the questions

    1 - equal in quality yes - equal in quantity no

    2 - That again is pretty foolish assumption all anyone needs to be convicted is one sin - all anyone needs to be saved is one chance - the numbers of chances is not the determining factor - its the person's reaction to the drawing of the Holy Spirit

    But lets be brutally honest about something - In non-Calvinism everyone has a chance to be saved - and the ability given by the Spirit to say yes

    In Calvinism - they dont - I have yet to hear or read a Calvinist say someone will be saved from the general call - without reducing it to hypothetical so that they cant be accused of being flat out liars and purveyors of Satanic blasphemy.

    Whats more kind and loving - everyone an equal quality of chance - or only certain people get a real chance - while the rest are duped by a half-chance

    3A YES

    3b - everyone gets a chance to go to heaven vs
    Calvinism - only a few people get to go to heaven

    Id say Calvinism is the more sadistic doctrine

    Of course Calvinists can reply to this - but that wasnt the purpose of this diatribe

    You guys are discussing the same thing over and over in different threads cant we consolidate - into - Foreknowledge thread - Free Will thread - and Original sin thread or something like that
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    And that's precisely why it is a wonderful analogy. If the Arminian system agrees that one cannot "move" toward God without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, then we have as much free will as a rock does to defy gravity on its own steam.</font>[/QUOTE]We cannot move without the call of the HOly Spirit, true - but all men are called - the chance for all to say "yes" or "no" is present for all. The free will is there. The ability to respond is there. I have never denied depravity, inability, nor the necessity for the Holy Spirit to call a man before he can say yes or no.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, it is not "my concept of foreknowledge." It is what Scripture teaches. Second, you make a plain misstatement when you say that we assume everything has happened. That doesn't even make sense. We are living in time according to the purpose of God who is working (present tense) all things after the counsel of his own will. God is working his will out in time.

    You want me to assume that but I have no idea what you are talking about. A "single linear timeline"??? What in the world ...

    If you God is active in new creative acts, then he is not the God of Scripture. Creation was finished at the end of Gen 1. Now God through Christ is sustaining the world, holding it together. HE is not creating. However, God is still active in the redemption of man so on that we agree.

    Is this the level to which you wish to stoop? This is an inane comment that serves no purpose. Nobody here believes God is doing that.

    Again, this makes no sense. If God acts on all possibilities, how does he limit them? And if God acts on all possibilities, then how are they possibilities? Once he acts on them, they become actualities. But God cannot act on all possibilities (assuming everything else you have said is true) because the possibilities include mutually exclusive outcomes. In your scenario, if there are two possibilities (a person accepts or rejects), God can only act on one of them. I agree that God knows all possibilities, but he knows them only as possibilities. He is not sitting aroudn waiting to see what the outcome is.

    How does someone in prehistoric Africa have the same quality of chance as someone in the twenty first century Bible belt? Surely, you do not make this statement with a straight face.

    What about those who never hear?

    Because they won't.

    IN your system, only a few people get to go to heaven. IN Calvinism, everyone has a chance -- anyone who wants to can say yes. They are prevented by nothing other than their own desires.

    But what you say is not the issue. What Scripture says is the issue.
     
  8. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are remarkably shifty in your arguments, but it won't wash. Here was your original statement:

    The words "drawing" and "can" are scriptural in this context. Scripture does say both. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father draw him. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father enables him. "Can" == "enabled", so thus far you're perfectly in tune with scripture.

    But now you switch from "drawing" to "call" as if nobody will notice the sudden change in terminology.

    Drawing and calling are not the same thing. I can call you for dinner, and I can persuade you to eat it. But the two actions are not nearly identical.

    Furthermore, while the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One, they have different offices. So one cannot conclude that the drawing of one is equal to the drawing of another. So unless you can demonstrate that the call of God is the same thing as the call of the Holy Spirit, or the the drawing of Jesus is the same thing as the drawing of the Father, then it is unscriptural, if not intellectually dishonest, to mix up these concepts just to get to the conclusion you want.

    The absurdity of the conclusion

    In spite of all these missed distinctions, you come to this most astonishing conclusion:

    !!! Calvinism agrees that all men are called. Calvinism agrees that the chance to say "yes" or "no" is present for all. But, without any scriptural support whatsoever, you manage to conclude that the call and the chance somehow prove ability and free will!!

    So here is your reasoning in a nutshell:

    1. It is scriptural and agreed upon that man cannot choose Christ without the enabling power of the Father. (No man can come to Jesus unless the Father enables him.)

    From here...

    You say the Spirit calls all men, and equate the call with the enabling power of God. Yet...

    You provide no scripture to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the call of the Holy Spirit.

    You provide no scripture to demonstrate that the call of God would be the same thing as the call of the Holy Spirit.

    You provide no scripture to demonstrate that a call is the same thing as drawing.

    You provide no scripture to demonstrate that the call is the same thing as enabling.

    2. Therefore man is endowed with free will and can choose Christ of his own free will.

    Assuming the reader is a chicken without a beak, such reasoning is indeed impeccable.

    [ January 27, 2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]
     
  9. Sularis

    Sularis Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    Single Linear time
    past -------- present -------- future

    We both agree that God is currently working out His will - but your viewpoint in my understanding is that He's already seen every thing from past to future and since theres only one path - it basically is a matter of "do or do not there is no try" ;) sorry couldnt resist

    Again Ill try and diagram

    God's foreknowledge
    past -------- present -------- future

    God's acting out His will
    past -------- present -------- future

    One path one choice no difference - simply put a rerun

    My view

    \=sin -=no sin /=Gods actions
    Gods foreknowledge
    past - Eve - Adam -
    \ hadnt hidden and confessed sin
    Adam /
    \
    Cain and Abel - Cain and Abel
    \
    Cain
    It goes on like this until Noah
    rainbow
    /
    saved by obedience to God - no rainbow
    Noah /
    \
    human race wiped out restart


    Jesus - 40 days - crucified - universal redeem
    \ \
    No Messiah refused to die No Messiah

    /
    / -
    Present - \
    \

    Future see present

    God's acting out His will --- Future
    /--------- /
    past -------Present - ----------- \-------- /

    God in His interaction with mans choices upon seeing what choice he made - God then countermoved to balance it so that the future is still what He wants it to be, but He has presented, or allowed us a limited choice set within we work, and He then balances.

    As in creative acts there are still new stars being born - babies are coming into the world

    Now for God acting and creating multiple actualities - Nuh uh - Hes outside time, only when He reaches into time and does something does He create actuality. God acts on all possibilties by knowing what needs to be done to turn that possibilty if it happens to His will and purpose - even Adam sinning - or Adam not sinning. Certain possibilities God pre-emptively acts to prevent - others He will let happen and deal with as He chooses to having planned for all the possibilities.

    You saying the grace of God which is infinite cannot reach an African by vision or direct intervention - when we fail in our duties?
    Bah God's bigger then us - If we fail in our job of evangelism, He will step in make sure everyone gets a chance - but we as a church will suffer for our failure - for every lost soul - that we could have given more chances to, by being there and preaching. after all Faith comes by hearing the Word - not the Bible - the Word - ie God

    Larry
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have yet to hear or read a Calvinist say someone will be saved from the general call
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because they won't.

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    everyone gets a chance to go to heaven vs Calvinism - only a few people get to go to heaven
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IN your system, only a few people get to go to heaven. IN Calvinism, everyone has a chance -- anyone who wants to can say yes. They are prevented by nothing other than their own desires.

    Read what you post man - if no one will be saved from the general call which you yourself said will happen then its not a chance!! - not everyone will have a chance - Yes its true few people in my system will go to heaven - but guess what - everyone got a call that could actually save them had they cared to.

    Unless you want to say that a general call is sufficient unto salvation - and that there may be general call Christians out there

    No Larry - what you think God says isnt the issue its what God really says that is [​IMG]
     
  10. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    (emphasis mine)

    Perhaps you should take your own advice, since your system is not what matters.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless you are an open thiest, then you are no different.

    But notice how there is no Scripture here. The Bible does not say that God is countermoving to balance anything. The Bible says that God is working all things after the counsel of his own will. Notice 1) God is working, not reacting; 2) his work involves all things, including the choices of men; 3) he working things after the counsel of his will, not in response to man's choice in an effort to balance them out.

    I didn't say that and you know it. YOU ARe again making stuff up to try to support your point. STOP IT. Do not make stuff up. I don't think the grace of God is limited by us in anyway. God has made plain in Scripture that he intends to save his elect by their belief in the message of Christ.

    Again, notice the lack of Scripture. This is not what Scripture says.

    The Scripture is the Word of God that must be preached. IT is the message about Christ. But this is in reality a small distinction because the Scripture is the message about Christ.

     
  12. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    GOD SAID (John 3:16,18) Whosever, me, you, we, they, us, them, All, part, some, most, everyone, inclusive, individuals, etc.

    Believeth, hears (in the action sense), is persuaded, is convinced, has a mind set upon, holds the conviction that, etc.

    Will, shall, should, may, etc.,

    Have, possess, receive, "own", etc.

    Eternal life, never ending life, everlasting life, life without end, never perishing and no vacations!

    Quite definite statement from God!
     
  13. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only because you are inferring your own definition of terms onto mine.

    Very well.

    It's because they are the same.

    Only in your system of belief. They are one and the same in Arminian theology.

    It is the Holy Spirit that leads us to repentence. Christ does not call anymore - he is at the right hand of God, making intercession for us. Yet it is Christ who made the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus no longer draws us - that is the Holy Spirit's job now, as Jesus is in heaven. Nevertheless, all are parts of the Godhead.

    !!! Calvinism agrees that all men are called. Calvinism agrees that the chance to say "yes" or "no" is present for all.</font>[/QUOTE]So Calvinism would agree that it is possible for a "non-elect" to say "yes?" Hmmmm... That strikes me as completely antithetical to the teachings of Calvin, and to what Calvinists have been saying on this board. Is it also possible for a "non-elect" to say "no?" ...speaking of absurd...

    Because the evidence to the contrary is insufficient. All men are drawn, as evidenced by the words of Christ himself. Not all say yes, as evidenced by the existence of Hell. What is the result? That man must somehow have the ability to say "no." If man has the ability to say "no" and "yes," then he must, in this area, have free will over what he chooses to decide.

    And all men are drawn, okay.

    Is there evidence to the contrary?

    John 16:8-11 shows that after Christ left, the Holy Spirit would convict man of sin.

    Why wouldn't it be - the Holy Spirit is God - different from the Father, but still God.

    So there's a difference? Where?

    Ah, but you see "enabling" as a certain "coming." I see "enabling" as inviting to make a choice. I wonder if that makes a difference.

    There are other steps that you are missing - parts that I've mentioned from the beginning, but you're getting closer.

    Only because you are reading your own definitions into the words I'm using - things you've been doing from the very beginning... but I'm used to such things by now.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if you have been reading along here, you know that I agree with every word of that. Whoever believes will have eternal life. Whoever wants it can have it -- we keep saying that but you keep telling us we don't believe it. It is time for you to start listening to what we are saying and assume that we know what we believe ... :(

    You want to focus on teh "whoever" while we think it falls to short. It is "whoever believes" and "whosoever will." You cannot just ignore that part of it.
     
  15. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    Then why all the talk of predetermination of "the elect". God opened heaven for all not just an elect. Therefore all who believe God's Son Jesus become the elect by virtue of belief which is exercise of human free will.

    Like it or not, that is what God says.
     
  16. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually, hearing comes by the word of God. Once one is enabled to hear, faith comes by hearing. That is what the verse says: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

    The Greek word translated as "word" is "rhema", not "logos." "Rhema" means "utterance". The use of "rhema" here implies that a special utterance by God is necessary for us to hear what we would need to hear in order to have faith.
     
  17. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    How do you get that it is a "special utterance". Would the priest reading the scrolls not be 'an utterance'? The word of God is being uttered by a priest (or anyone who can read aloud), so that anyone who can hear is able to "hear" the word of God. Some preachers utter the word of God sometimes, others utter the word of God most of the time, but none of the preachers utter the word of God all of the time. :D

    It is true that the truth from the word of God is spoken with the mouth and heard by the ear, but the spirit determines "hearing". For it is the spirit that accepts or rejects what is uttered and heard. :cool:
     
  18. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps the concept of 'an age of accountability'within Christendom comes out of II Samuel 12:23. Because of David and Bathsheba's sin God took away that son because of His judgment that came into their lives. David understood that the child could not return to him from the dead, but he was keenly aware that one day he would see his son in Heaven. The child clearly had no opportunity to become a responsive believer in Jehovah God.

    The other aspect of the topic is the free agency of all human beings. This is documented in the Word and is learned by most of us at an early age in Sunday School. 'For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. [John 3:16]

    Is this what you mean by "Double Free Will And Other Related Problems?
     
  19. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    It's because they are the same.

    Only in your system of belief. They are one and the same in Arminian theology.
    </font>[/QUOTE]If that is true, then you have demonstrated one reason why Arminian theology is not Biblical.

    "Given unto him" is the Greek "didomi", and is translated in the NIV as "enabled".

    The word is "helkuo", to drag off, or to impel.

    The word is "kaleo", to call aloud.

    The word is again "kaleo".

    So there is a very big difference between "called", "enabled" and "drawn". While we're on the subject, notice this particular usage of the word "called":

    When the word is used in this context, it is usually "kletos", but in some cases "klesis". Both mean to be invited to a feast. This word is similar to "kaleo" but stronger despite today's understanding of what an invitation is, since when a king invited you to a feast, you pretty much went or you got your head lopped off.

    Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Not only are drawing and calling different, but there's a specific way of referring to the "called" when it refers to something we are supposed to do, and something we cannot refuse without dire consequences.

    So they are not at all the same in the Bible. Perhaps you are comfortable with the idea that Arminian theology doesn't need to conform to what the Bible says, and that's why they are one and the same in Arminian theology.

    So Calvinism would agree that it is possible for a "non-elect" to say "yes?"</font>[/QUOTE]That's not what I said. I said the chance to say "yes" or "no" is present for all, not the inclination or ability.

    Because the evidence to the contrary is insufficient. All men are drawn, as evidenced by the words of Christ himself.</font>[/QUOTE]I assume you are referring to John 12:32.

    Yes, John 12:32 has Jesus saying He will draw all men unto Him in the NIV. The NIV also translates "given unto" as "enabled". But neither translation is accurate. Ever wonder why the New King James translates it this way?

    It is because the word "men" (and even the word "peoples" is not in the Greek. Jesus literally says He will draw "all" unto Himself. All of whom is not specified in this statement.

    Is there evidence to the contrary?</font>[/QUOTE]You are the one who says it's true. The burden of proof is upon you to provide scripture that says the Spirit calls all men. That's what I said. You provide no such scripture.

    John 16:8-11 shows that after Christ left, the Holy Spirit would convict man of sin.</font>[/QUOTE]That does not say the Spirit calls all men. Jesus reproved the Pharisees of sin, yet I didn't see him "calling" the Pharisees.

    So there's a difference? Where?</font>[/QUOTE]See above. So where's your scripture that shows they are the same?

    Ah, but you see "enabling" as a certain "coming." I see "enabling" as inviting to make a choice. I wonder if that makes a difference.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it does make a difference. "Enabling" in the Bible means being given the ability by the Father. Enabling in your head and Arminian theology means "being invited". [sarcasm] Slight difference. [/sarcasm] The fact that you "see" it differently doesn't change the meaning to what you wish it to be.
     
  20. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
     
Loading...