The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I misrepresent nothing. Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one cannot do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.
You most certainly do misrepresent what we think. And you do so through simply human logic, not a logic that tries to attain a "whole Bible theology."
You simply state your definition of volitional free will as fact (begging the question, by the way). In doing so, you seem to want to arrange a false dichotomy wherein man's "free will" is at odds with God's sovereignty.
In every example, from the tame to the extreme, the creature's decisions are never based solely on the creature's volition, as some outside influence is always brought to bear.
By the way...here's a question for you: Do you pray that persons you know who are not believers, perhaps a friend, co-worker, or family member come to Christ?
Frankly, I resent your false accusation of me hating my brothers and sisters, what is it in you that causes you to misrepresent me with that lie (strawman)? Could it be you have nothing else left in your ignorance of critical thinking skills but to deny simple logic and resort to such ad hominem fallacious tactics while making claims of personal martyrdom?
I'm deeply moved. You demonstrate something other than loving your brothers and sisters when you take your false definition of what we believe and keep on trying to impose that false definition on us. This is a textbook definition of creating a strawman--you misrepresent our position by creating a false caricature and then you "fight" against the caricature.
I am by no means ignorant of critical thinking skills. I use my skills to interpret scripture and to see how scripture interprets itself. I do not use my skills to apply non-biblical definitions of things, like free will, over the text and then make the text subservient to my a priori ideas.
My argument is against the Doctrines of Calvinism/Determinism and you can put it in the bank that I have a problem with a doctrine that would preach the dark message of no hope except for the especially lucky pre-selected election of the few, even if they won’t admit it with some “truth” and transparency up front when preaching what they call the gospel as I spelled out in the Op. It is not the Gospel (Good News) to all the world in the Calvinist position but its a gospel is bad news for for most when the "truth" of what they believe is ever told.
You accuse us of preaching a false gospel? Really?! You call the Calvinist gospel "a dark message of no hope." If this is true, which it isn't, then I would be saying your non-Calvinist, free-will gospel is a dark message of hope in one's self, which I am not.
As for the gospel...I suppose you preach "Salvation through grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone." This is exactly what the Calvinists preach.
The fact of the matter is that we do not explain the doctrine of election to unbelievers because it is not important to do so. Do you explain electrical theory and the principles of physics to your young children so they can turn on a light, or do you just tell them to flip the switch? Of course, it is the latter.
Furthermore, we preach the gospel indiscriminately. We have no idea who the elect are--which is a good thing. We do not base preaching the gospel or the subsequent resulting salvation resulting from a response of repentance and faith on election or lack thereof. We say that salvation--the response of repentance and faith--is the evidence of God's work in your life, up to and including election and exercising repentance and faith.
And Needlessly?!? NOT for the multitudes who are familiar with the Calvinist doctrines and have been lead to believe they may not have been one of the preselected few and thereby have an excuse not to respond while making the same argument Determinist do! Simply, the condition of faith from one’s own heart is not met in the systematic ramblings of Calvinism/Determinism as it amounts to a doctrine of pre-determined grace alone!
The condition of faith from one's own heart? What you seem to be missing here is that we believe that faith must be exercised too.
But, you are aware of the the Bible says about the heart, right?
[5] The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
(Genesis 6:5 ESV)
[9] The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV)
You're saying that a deceitful-above-all-things and a only-evil-continually heart can produce the faith necessary for salvation? I think that's far stretch.(Genesis 6:5 ESV)
[9] The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV)
But, even if we grant that it is possible (which we do not), why can you not grant that we preach the necessity of a response of faith? If your father is a judge and issues a bench warrant because you owe $1,000 and you come before him in his court, does it really matter if you bring your own $1,000 to pay the debt or if he gives you the $1,000 to pay the debt. At the end of the day the debt is paid and the "requirement" is met.
Furthermore, if salvation is by God's grace alone, and therefore is something we do not deserve, why would it be a problem for God to supply the faith as well?
If grace is indeed "unmerited favor" the gift of faith is no problem. However, as you seem to want to argue, if God's salvation is the result of a proper response of one's own inherent faith, then grace becomes "merited favor" and is no longer "grace."
The Calvinist/Determinist idea of a response of faith is not that it comes freely from your own heart due to the influences of God, but that He pre-determinately caused that irresistible effect to respond to those influences. Yes, the Bible requires a real, a true responsibility from man to respond in a condition of faith for love of the truth of the Word after hearing it.
You are simply wrong. The Calvinist idea is that a response of faith comes freely from our own heart due to the influence of God, working through the Holy Spirit. That's it.
In our "economy" is the response of faith a result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the elect? Yes. But, as we are fond of saying, God makes the constitutionally unwilling willing.
Again, I would hope you would discuss with us based on what we say we believe, not your own caricature of us. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we, at the very least, deserve that measure of respect from you. That is, of course, unless you do not consider us brothers and sisters...but that is a different issue entirely.
The Archangel
Last edited by a moderator: