MUST God preserve mankind Free Will to be fair?

[Yeshua1]

That He has to allow us full free will still in order to stay sovereign as God?

that seems to be a classic arminianism viewpoint!

 

[Tom Butler]

E. Y. Mullins is one of the greatest Southern Baptist theologians. He was president of Southern Baptist Seminary, a founder of the Baptist World Alliance, and a framer of the Baptist Faith and Message of 1925.

Here is what he wrote about the free agency of man:

[FONT=&quot]Freedom in man does not imply exemption from the operation of influences, motives, heredity, environment. It means rather that man is not under compulsion. His actions are in the last resort determined from within. He is self-determined in what he does. Some hold that freedom in man means ability to transcend himself and act contrary to his character. (This is the erroneous sense of free will, as believed by all Pelagians and Arminians, and as opposed by Luther and many others.) The will is thus regarded, not as an expression of what the man is in his essential character. It is free in the sense of being capable of choices unrelated to past choices, acquired traits, and hereditary tendencies. This is an untenable view of freedom. It makes the will a mere external attachment to man's nature rather than an expression thereof. Freedom excludes compulsion from without, it also excludes mere caprice and arbitrariness[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Another Southern Baptist theologian-author is Thomas Paul Simmons. He wrote:

[FONT=&quot]When men say that the absolute sovereignty of God cannot be reconciled with the free agency of man by finite minds, they betoken a misunderstanding either of free agency, or the workings of God's sovereignty, or both. Free agency is in perfect, full, and manifest harmony with the absolute sovereignty of God. The bond of union between the two lies in the fact that the will is subject to the character of its possessor. God has determined the character of each man, through either His positive or permissive decrees- positive in the case of all good, and permissive in the case of all evil. And God, having determined all circumstances, controls the motives that influence the will. Thus God controls the actions of men, and yet men act at all times as freely as God Himself does. If there were no God, man could not act more freely than he does[/FONT]

God always acts freely according to His nature. So does man act freely within his nature.

 

[Inspector Javert]

No "Arminian" or "free-willer" wants God to be "fair"...

If God were "fair" we'd all burn in Hell.
"Arminians" (as you call them) are completely dis-interested in "fairness" as you define it.

 

[quantumfaith]

No "Arminian" or "free-willer" wants God to be "fair"...

If God were "fair" we'd all burn in Hell.
"Arminians" (as you call them) are completely dis-interested in "fairness" as you define it.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

"Fair" is so often used to be one of those "zinger" words. More appropriately, the word or attribute to consider is the "justice" of God. Thankfully God has other attributes like grace, hesedh, mercy and love. All of these attributes are brought out and mixed as ingredients in the bread of salvation.

 

[Yeshua1]

No "Arminian" or "free-willer" wants God to be "fair"...

If God were "fair" we'd all burn in Hell.
"Arminians" (as you call them) are completely dis-interested in "fairness" as you define it.

except that one of their biggest complaints against calvinism is that to their mindset, God HAS to treat all sinners on an equal basis, that he has to provode salvation freely to all sinners, and has to allow for free will, or else "not fair/puppet master!"

 

[Van]

except that one of their biggest complaints against Calvinism is that to their mindset, God HAS to treat all sinners on an equal basis, that he has to provide salvation freely to all sinners, and has to allow for free will, or else "not fair/puppet master!"

Calvinism is defended not by presenting Calvinism but by misrepresenting the views of non-Calvinists.

Calvinism is irrational nonsense. Take God predestining whatsoever comes to pass yet is not the author of sin. This example of Calvinism's cognitive dissonance is spectacular.

Does the Bible teach God treats all people the same? Nope. Recall Jesus saying "if I want to treat this person in this way, what is it to you?" (paraphrased John 21:22) So a false claim. This results in not discussing Calvinism but in addressing the endless fictions Calvinists post.

God does treat all people with justice or mercy in the afterlife. That is certainly true. So if God predestines a person to sin, and then punishes that person for the sin God compelled, would that be just?

So by the numbers:

1) Does God have to treat all sinners on an equal basis? No, some get justice, others get mercy. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #1.

2) Does God have to provide salvation freely to all sinners? No, some sinners live and die and never even hear the gospel. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #2.

3) Does God have to provide free will to everyone? No, God hardens some hearts, removing the opportunity to trust in the gospel for His purposes. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #3.

On and on folks, one falsehood after another to hide the truth that Calvinism is mistaken doctrine.

 

[agedman]

Calvinism is defended not by presenting Calvinism but by misrepresenting the views of non-Calvinists.

This from someone who would defeat calvinism by presenting faulty premise.

Calvinism is irrational nonsense. Take God predestining whatsoever comes to pass yet is not the author of sin. This example of Calvinism's cognitive dissonance is spectacular.

See how the mixture is turned?

What has God predestined already for EVERY person who does not believe? Not that they sin, but they are condemned.

It is not God's fault that man sin(s). God did not "predesignate" man to sin.

Does the Bible teach God treats all people the same? Nope. Recall Jesus saying "if I want to treat this person in this way, what is it to you?" (paraphrased John 21:22) So a false claim. This results in not discussing Calvinism but in addressing the endless fictions Calvinists post.

God does treat all people with justice or mercy in the afterlife. That is certainly true. So if God predestines a person to sin, and then punishes that person for the sin God compelled, would that be just?

Again, there is the element of improper alignment. God does not "COMPEL" man to sin. Man does just fine sinning on their own - no help from God is needed.

That God is just and the justifier seem to escape humankind, for the typical person doesn't want to have their evil exposed much less be obliged to forsake what they most enjoy.

So by the numbers:

1) Does God have to treat all sinners on an equal basis? No, some get justice, others get mercy. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #1.

2) Does God have to provide salvation freely to all sinners? No, some sinners live and die and never even hear the gospel. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #2.

3) Does God have to provide free will to everyone? No, God hardens some hearts, removing the opportunity to trust in the gospel for His purposes. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #3.

On and on folks, one falsehood after another to hide the truth that Calvinism is mistaken doctrine.

As one can see, the numbers that are given do not add up to what Van desires.

Rather, they show the biased assumptions, misalignment, and distortions so typical of one who has been shown what is factual but desires to remain comfortable in their own dissonance.

 

[Van]

Running from Calvinism

What has God predestined already for EVERY person who does not believe? Not that they sin, but they are condemned.

It is not God's fault that man sin(s). God did not "predesignate" man to sin.

A display of cognitive dissonance. Does God predestine whatsoever comes to pass? Yes according to Calvinism. "To foreknow is to predestine" However, this Calvinist claims God did not foreknow and therefore predestine each and every one of our sins. Thus he is running away from the irrationality of Calvinism.

Again, there is the element of improper alignment. God does not "COMPEL" man to sin. Man does just fine sinning on their own - no help from God is needed.

More of the same cognitive dissonance. If I am predestined to do something, I am compelled to do it.

Rather, they show the biased assumptions, misalignment, and distortions so typical of one who has been shown what is factual but desires to remain comfortable in
their own dissonance.

No evidence, just the charge.

1) Does God have to treat all sinners on an equal basis? No, some get justice, others get mercy. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #1.

2) Does God have to provide salvation freely to all sinners? No, some sinners live and die and never even hear the gospel. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #2.

3) Does God have to provide free will to everyone? No, God hardens some hearts, removing the opportunity to trust in the gospel for His purposes. So false claim by Calvinism's defender #3.​

 

[BobRyan]

That He has to allow us full free will still in order to stay sovereign as God?

that seems to be a classic arminianism viewpoint!

It is a question of righteousness and justice - not fairness.

God "could" sovereignly choose any system He wanted for His Universe - but He chose the "whosoever will" model - .

Having chosen that model - He then must be true to His own Word to then claim that His WORD is true, and that He is just and Righteous etc.

That is the part that the Calvinist argument keeps missing.

God does not represent Himself as "King of robot programming" but rather as King of a free will system.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DocTrinsoGrace]

Astounding! Do people actually cry out for fairness? I am a sinner. The last thing I want from a Holy God is for Him to be fair! I am a sinner! I crave mercy!

 

[preacher4truth]

Astounding! Do people actually cry out for fairness? I am a sinner. The last thing I want from a Holy God is for Him to be fair! I am a sinner! I crave mercy!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

Astounding! Do people actually cry out for fairness? I am a sinner. The last thing I want from a Holy God is for Him to be fair! I am a sinner! I crave mercy!

:wavey::thumbs::wavey:

 

[The Biblicist]

No "Arminian" or "free-willer" wants God to be "fair"...

If God were "fair" we'd all burn in Hell.
"Arminians" (as you call them) are completely dis-interested in "fairness" as you define it.

That is simply not true! The Arminian arguments against total inability of totally depraved sinners is based squarely upon the assertion that such a predicament is not fair! How many times have we read on this forum that man must have "response-ability" or that would not be just or fair????

 

[preacher4truth]

That is simply not true! The Arminian arguments against total inability of totally depraved sinners is based squarely upon the assertion that such a predicament is not fair! How many times have we read on this forum that man must have "response-ability" or that would not be just or fair????

Exactly!!! They have God in a box or 'predicament', or at least they think they do. They see in Scripture the attributes of God, think them unfair, then go through a myriad of hoops to attempt to erase these truths or tweak them to their liking and to what makes them feel comfy and feel that God is now fair.

Man judging God to whether He is fair or not, exercising their judgment upon Him and sizing up His Sovereignty, and concluding that His righteous acts in choosing are simply unfair. Totally ridiculous.

You're correct. What IJ said is simply not true whatsoever.

 

[BobRyan]

It is a question of righteousness and justice - not fairness.

God "could" sovereignly choose any system He wanted for His Universe - but He chose the "whosoever will" model - .

Having chosen that model - He then must be true to His own Word to then claim that His WORD is true, and that He is just and Righteous etc.

That is the part that the Calvinist argument keeps missing.

God does not represent Himself as "King of robot programming" but rather as King of a free will system.

That is simply not true! The Arminian arguments against total inability of totally depraved sinners is based squarely upon the assertion that such a predicament is not fair!

Not according to my post above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Inspector Javert]

That is simply not true! The Arminian arguments against total inability of totally depraved sinners is based squarely upon the assertion that such a predicament is not fair!

No, it is simply that it is not His nature as he has revealed it to us.

How many times have we read on this forum that man must have "response-ability" or that would not be just or fair????

"Just"-no, it wouldn't be.
"Fair"- non-issue.

Justice isn't fairness....to equivocate between the two is grievous error.
That's why we have a "Justice" system...not a "fairness" system.
The U.S. has a Department of Justice not a Bureau of Fairness.
Only people people such as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi other Communists and the like (or apparently, perhaps Calvinists?) cannot distinguish between the two.

Do Calvinists not actually know the difference?

Or do you pretend you don't so you can saddle non-Cals with a straw-man?
.....I suspect it's the latter.

Bob explained it perfectly.....
God could have done whatever he wanted:
He could have created men with total inability, or he could give them ability:
It wouldn't be "Fair" either way.......

He has revealed that he CHOSE to grant men the free will and the ability to respond to Divine Revelation, and he judges based upon those criterion:
That is what he calls "JUSTICE" ------not "Fairness".

 

[Inspector Javert]

Astounding! Do people actually cry out for fairness?

No, no one does.

Our Calvinist brethren on B.B. (at least most of them) know full well they don't too.

Some......well, maybe they honestly don't know something so very elementary, and that's sad.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, it is simply that it is not His nature as he has revealed it to us.

"Just"-no, it wouldn't be.
"Fair"- non-issue.

Justice isn't fairness....to equivocate between the two is grievous error.
That's why we have a "Justice" system...not a "fairness" system.
The U.S. has a Department of Justice not a Bureau of Fairness.
Only people people such as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi other Communists and the like (or apparently, perhaps Calvinists?) cannot distinguish between the two.

Do Calvinists not actually know the difference?

Or do you pretend you don't so you can saddle non-Cals with a straw-man?
.....I suspect it's the latter.

Bob explained it perfectly.....
God could have done whatever he wanted:
He could have created men with total inability, or he could give them ability:
It wouldn't be "Fair" either way.......

He has revealed that he CHOSE to grant men the free will and the ability to respond to Divine Revelation, and he judges based upon those criterion:
That is what he calls "JUSTICE" ------not "Fairness".

Your distinction between Just and Fair is based purely upon an UNEQUAL humanized system of dealing with people where what is just is not always what is fair due only to the flaws in our system.

However, such is not the case with God's system which is derived from His attribute of holiness which has no multi-distinctions or UNEQUAL application, but defines what is just to be also what is fair in God's sight as He his system has but a single equalizing principle and that is treat others as you wish to be treated.

So in God's sight there is no distinction between what is right, just or fair as His system of righteousness makes no such VARIABLE distinctions in the treatment of others. In God's system of holiness what is fair is both just and right and what is right is both just and fair and what is just is both right and fair as his system has one standard of treatment which is EQUAL because His law makes NO UNEQUAL DISTINCTIONS - treat each other as you wish to be treated.

So we are speaking from Gods' perspective and not from man's perspective of just and fair. So the bottom line is that your argument concerns God not men and Arminians believe God could not be JUST/FAIR to some if election was unconditional or if He demanded of man what they are incapable of doing.

 

[kyredneck]

Astounding! Do people actually cry out for fairness? ....

....Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Ro 9:19

The objection on the grounds of 'fairness' is apparently a natural one.

 

[BobRyan]

Your distinction between Just and Fair is based purely upon an UNEQUAL humanized system of dealing with people

Not entirely true.

=======================================
Originally Posted by BobRyan
It is a question of righteousness and justice - not fairness.

God "could" sovereignly choose any system He wanted for His Universe - but He chose the "whosoever will" model - .

Having chosen that model - He then must be true to His own Word to then claim that His WORD is true, and that He is just and Righteous etc.

That is the part that the Calvinist argument keeps missing.

God does not represent Himself as "King of robot programming" but rather as King of a free will system.

In God's system of holiness what is fair is both just and right and what is right is both just and fair and what is just is both right and fair as his system has one standard of treatment which is EQUAL because His law makes NO UNEQUAL DISTINCTIONS - treat each other as you wish to be treated.

You are switching the discussion away from the justice of God in being true to His own Word and rather making it about the fairness and Justice of God in having a law about loving one another.

The question initially put to the Arminians was not "you think God's Laws are fair and they are not".

The question was about the way Arminians complain about Calvinism's arbitrary selection story. We do not complain that it is unfair - but rather that it is unjust since God sovereignly declared that He has chosen the "whosoever will" model and not the "puppeteer" or "robot programmer" model of arbitrary selection.

The focus then is "What do we expect of God" when HE claims to be just and true and righteous? Do we expect Him to honor His own Word? The answer is "yes we do".

in Christ,

Bob