Double free will and other problems

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB]If I offer a hundred dollars to the first person to get into my office, do you have an equal chance compared to my wife???

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.

Hardly. Your approach makes God a respecter of persons because it leads to a situation where people living in particular times or locales have a "more equal" chance than others. The view that we hold maintains the impartiality of God by not giving preference to some who happened to be born in the right place. Only in our view is everyone on equal ground.

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?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:

The idea of people being "robots" is not my main argument. You're still constructing a straw man. What about the other parts of my posts. Have you nothing to say to them?</font>[/QUOTE]Whether it's your main argument or the third cousin twice removed of your argument, it still contradicts your other argument. One or the other must be false, so I see no way to reach your conclusions.

As for the other parts, I've reread your posts and didn't see anything else that you said that merited a response. Perhaps you could explain what you feel needs to be resolved.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
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?

Perhaps you do not understand what it means to be a respecter of persons. If God chose to favor someone over another based on an attribute of his (the man's attribute, that is, such as a Greek, a Jew, white, black, bald, hairy, ugly, handsome, likes long walks on the beach, etc.) that is what would make God a respecter of persons.

If God chooses someone who has nothing to recommend him, and puts something better in that person because God has elected to do so, then that does not make God a respecter of persons. God saves that individual because of what God did, not because of something man had in him.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Everyone is not on equal ground in the Calvinist doctrine. There is a population of people where it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to believe.

Yes, that is 100% of all mankind, except Jesus.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
There is another segment where it is IMPOSSIBLE NOT to believe.

Yes, that is 100% of those whom God elects.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
How can you not see this as unequal ground?

It is equal as far as man is concerned, because those who are elect are not favored for any merit of their own. It certainly is not "equal" in the sense of the word you like, which is that all are universally elect and saved. But not all are saved in Arminianism, either, so I don't see what your complaint is.

(Edited to correct He to he and clarify that text.)

[ January 26, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
It certainly is not "equal" in the sense of the word you like, which is that all are universally elect and saved. But not all are saved in Arminianism, either, so I don't see what your complaint is.[/QB]

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

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
It certainly is not "equal" in the sense of the word you like, which is that all are universally elect and saved. But not all are saved in Arminianism, either, so I don't see what your complaint is.

And that's it - That's what is happening! You are convinced that I'm a universalist. I think it slipped, for you.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Exsqueeze me? I did not say you are a universalist. You said, "How can you not see this as unequal ground?" Given that you define "equal" as "universally given", I simply pointed out that salvation is no more equal in that sense than Calvinism is.

"In the sense of the word you like" refers to the fact that you view 'equal' to mean the universality of something given', not the 'equal quality of what is given'. So to say that Calvinism is "unequal" is, in your terms, to say that salvation is not universally given. Well, neither is it universally given in Arminianism, so what's your beef?

 

[ScottEmerson]

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."

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
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.

You're right. From 1. to 2. is a huge jump that is found nowhere in scripture. So I see no point in pursuing it any further than that.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Exsqueeze me? I did not say you are a universalist. You said, "How can you not see this as unequal ground?" Given that you define "equal" as "universally given", I simply pointed out that salvation is no more equal in that sense than Calvinism is.

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.

"In the sense of the word you like" refers to the fact that you view 'equal' to mean the universality of something given', not the 'equal quality of what is given'. So to say that Calvinism is "unequal" is, in your terms, to say that salvation is not universally given. Well, neither is it universally given in Arminianism, so what's your beef?

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.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
You're right. From 1. to 2. is a huge jump that is found nowhere in scripture. So I see no point in pursuing it any further than that.[/QB]

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

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The ability to truly say "yes" or "no" is absent in Calvinism.

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.

 

[npetreley]

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

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The ability to truly say "yes" or "no" is absent in Calvinism.

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.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
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.

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.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Choose life. Jeremiah's discussion of the potter's wheel. There are many instances of free will found in the Bible.

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.

 

[IndpndntBptst]

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.

 

[Travelsong]

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.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Arminianism agrees that a man can only say "yes" through the drawing of the Holy Spirit.

Then what you have is an absurd illusion of free will.

To paraphrase Martin Luther, you're admitting that if you let go of a rock in mid air, it will fall. The only possible way for it to go up is if you hold it and lift it up. In spite of this, you build an entire theology around the notion that God gave the rock the freedom to go up if it wishes to do so.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Choose life. Jeremiah's discussion of the potter's wheel. There are many instances of free will found in the Bible.

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.</font>[/QUOTE]The burden of proof that these verses teach free will is on you. The burden of proof that they are commands, instructions, exhortations, etc., would be on me.

Take Joshua 24:

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD ."

The verse tells people to choose. It says that he and his household will serve the LORD. It says nothing whatsoever about the ability of anyone to choose to serve the LORD of his own free will. It does not even address the issue of where one gets the inclination to choose to serve the LORD.

But to address the potter issue, take Jeremiah 18, for another example, particularly the two sections I have emphasized:

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
11 "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.' 12 But they will reply, 'It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.'

The first makes a very simple statement. If that nation repents, I will reconsider the disaster I had planned. This does not address how a nation could repent, it does not state that a nation can repent of its own free will, it does not even address these issues. All it says is "if -- then". The Bible also says that if you obey the law, you will be blessed, but we all know that no man has the ability to obey the law.

The second emphasized verse is even more fascinating. Here God says, "Turn from your evil ways" and then immediately says, "But I already know your response - you're going to ignore me and do what you want." If you can explain why God, knowing He would be ignored, would still bother to tell them to turn from their evil ways, then perhaps you can begin to understand why God tells us to choose, or to believe, knowing full well that without His enabling power we cannot comply.

I have shown that these passages issue commands, exhortations, and instructions. Now the burden is upon you to prove free will from these passages.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
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?

That is an excellent point. Erasmus and Luther battled over this one with Judas as the example, and Luther pretty much moppedl the floor with Erasmus. One can argue all day over the difference between foreknowledge and what it means to foreordain something, but no matter where you end up, the difference is purely academic. If Jesus foreknows and foretells that Judas would betray Him, then it must occur (necessity of consequence and necessity of the thing consequent). To say that Judas has a free will choice about what to do is a meaningless philosophy, since the outcome is foreordained simply by virtue of the undeniable fact that God foreknows something perfectly, permits it, and therefore it must come to pass.