Poor Old "Uncle Billy"

[thatbrian]

Firstly, thank you for explaining your position, and you are correct in saying that the real argument is one level beneath where the OP begins. The real issue is so-called "free will".

Your reasoning skills are thought regarding this subject are far above what I normally see from people who, for the most part, take a default Pelagian view without ever exerting much mental energy seeking the truth about how and why God saves sinners, so I look forward to discussing this further with you. Don't be too flattered though, because you are of course, incorrect.

It's New Year's Eve, and I am busy, but I would like to continue with this later. Of course, I disagree, and I have arguments to present, but too much going on ATM. . .

Yes, there are those who exercise their agency to believe and those who do not. There is no "WHY" though, because by "WHY" you mean to say...."What preexisting states of affairs rendered that decision necessary?"
We don't believe that creaturely free decisions are caused in this way....You do.
It is the AGENT THEMSELVES which is the deciding factor, not a preexisting set of conditions.

You asked in a previous thread what Free Will was....It is one wherein the agent's choices are not determined by either INTERNAL or EXTERNAL necessities.
That's the Calvinist assumption, and one which is fundamentally denied by Arminians/ non-determinists.

 

[agedman]

Yeah...it's precisely what makes a determinist a determinist...by definition....
And Calvinism is, at it's core deterministic by default, whether you are personally aware of it or not.

Surprisingly that is more the condition of the Non-cal.

The non-cal's significant claim to fame is that the individual can determine their own fate, at their own time, of their own choosing.

They also have the freedom of the will to reject at any point or in the future.

So, "deterministic by default" is actually far more evident in the camp of the Non-Cal.

 

[InTheLight]

This argument fails on a fundamental level. Because it assumes determinist presuppositions...

It question begs the very thing up for dispute...


But that very question is the one up for dispute...

You believe that this line of argument demonstrates an inconsistency in your opponent's thinking.
But it doesn't. It would only be inconsistent if they, like yourselves were determinists.
Your question assumes premises your opponents deny.

There's no trap...
It's only a "trap" for one who assumes that all choices are necessitated by pre-existing states of affairs.

I don't know about "wise" but, I understand it....
It's simply a false dilemma.
It assumes premises already rejected and which are precisely what is up for debate.


This argument has been made a gazillion times and in a gazillion forms and it fails on a very fundamental level. I'm sorry but neither you nor poor Sproul have, or ever did have, anything here.
It's a very elementary and BASIC informal logical error.

God bless you. You have patience.

You've explained several times in one post the fallacy of the premise.

Basically, it's a strawman. It's what thatbrian does. Every day.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[TCassidy]

Yeah...it's precisely what makes a determinist a determinist...by definition....

Wrong again.

And Calvinism is, at it's core deterministic by default, whether you are personally aware of it or not.

Wrong yet again.

You said that free will "is one wherein the agent's choices are not determined by either INTERNAL or EXTERNAL necessities."

Nope. Free will has nothing at all to do with the ability to make choices. Free will is a denial of the bible teaching that the unsaved will is in bondage to the law of sin and death.

 

[TCassidy]

Basically, it's a strawman.

I agree. HeirofSalvation's failure to understand the definition of "free will" has resulted in his straw man posting.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The pendulum swings, which is one reason why I don't take any ancient writing (outside of Scriptures) as what an author might personally have held throughout their life. Beethoven's earliest tunes were not at all like those of the later years.

Rather, as we all grow in wisdom and understanding, experience that work of living and allowing the Holy Spirit leading, and rejoice in the triumphs while totally and continually grieving over the sinfulness and our own unworthiness, certain modifications are made.

I remember in my youth when I first became aware of the TULIP claims and showed intolerance toward any that were not so enlightened. How foolish I was (am).

It did not take long, though, and I began to be aware that certain points were not accurate with the Scriptures.

Hence, although I embrace the Doctrines of Grace, I must allow such thinking to be conformed to Scriptures.

Right

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He ought to come up with a sound effect to go with his declaration. I liked to use >plonk< back when I used the Ignore List. Makes an easy search term to employ when rubbing people's noses in the fact that they've been on the Ignore List since (fill in date).



Now, now... surely you are aware thatbrian knows more about your personal experiences and beliefs than you do yourself. He even knows what fictional characters affirm as beliefs.

Ahhh, this guys attitude just hits me as funny. My mother used to say you either know something cold or you don’t know it... so either you know something or you don’t know it. But this guy thinks he knows everything thus he is doctor knowitall and since he is right then you must be wrong... and don’t argue the point. Well from where I come from there is a vulgar expression uttered to address the issue, hard and direct and definitive... care to guess?

 

[Reynolds]

R.C. Sproul taught me this helpful diagnostic tool.

I often ask those who appeal to "free will" as the ultimate reason to explain why they've responded positively to God's call but "uncle Billy" has not. I ask them, are you smarter than uncle Billy? Are you more humble than uncle Billy? Are you more righteous than uncle Billy? To which they know they mustn't answer in the affirmative, but they also know they must. If one isn't aware of the trap he is about to walk into, or, if he is intellectually honest, he will answer in the affirmative. He will say that something in/about him was the deciding factor in his being saved over "uncle Billy" being saved.

Just two days ago I heard of such a case. A man said, "Yes. I believed because I had an advantage. I grew up in a Christian home so I heard the gospel preached and we read the Bible. . .". That answer, which was an honest one, inflicts a fatal wound to his own view, which has an equitable God giving all men, without exception, an equal shot at salvation.

The wiser non-Cals here on BB understand this dilemma, which is why one of two things happen in the threads that directly expose the error of Pelagianism - Arminianism. First, as @Reformed has already pointed out, they refuse to own their position, That's when they start sounding a lot like Calvinists, or, as in the case of a few of my threads, they simply don't respond, avoiding the issue altogether.

Why do you believe that you are saved and uncle Billy is not? Does "free will" explain it? If so, how?

*In case you hadn't already guessed, "Uncle Billy" is a fictitious relative who has heard the gospel but remains unrepentant.

Why does Uncle Billy like strawberry ice cream and I despise it?

 

[Reynolds]

But God's standard is perfect humility. Are you claiming you had, as a lost man, perfect humility?

Thankfully we don't have to be perfect in any way to come to Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

Thankfully we don't have to be perfect in any way to come to Christ.

What part of you is good enough to come to a Holy God on your own merits?

 

[thatbrian]

You asked in a previous thread what Free Will was....It is one wherein the agent's choices are not determined by either INTERNAL or EXTERNAL necessities.
That's the Calvinist assumption, and one which is fundamentally denied by Arminians/ non-determinists.

Arminians, as well as Calvinists, believe that sin has so harmed mankind that he is not able to come to Christ. The Calvinist believes that men must be regenerated first, and the Arminian believes that "prevenient grace" is necessary to temporarily undo/suspend the effects of sin so that one may place his faith in Christ, but neither side believes men have the ability to do this outside of divine intervention. Only the Pelagian would qualify as one who sees men free and able to come to Christ.

 

[thatbrian]

What has been shown is that all "free will" is conformed by health, mental and emotional state, financial and well being security, sustenance and diet, upbringing, culture expectations, ...

Yes, and that list is nearly infinite. Our choices are limited, not only God's initial design, but by Adams sin, and then the billions of steps from our conception to present day.

 

[thatbrian]

Yes, there are those who exercise their agency to believe and those who do not. There is no "WHY" though, because by "WHY" you mean to say...."What preexisting states of affairs rendered that decision necessary?"
We don't believe that creaturely free decisions are caused in this way....You do.
It is the AGENT THEMSELVES which is the deciding factor, not a preexisting set of conditions.

There must be a "Why" if the choice has any moral relevance.

 

[Aaron]

The one who chooses to come to Christ is more humble.

There ya go.

That's an honest answer. The ones who choose Christ have more virtue than the ones who don't.

If God has elected "whosoever believeth," and whosoever believeth doeth so because of the presence of a virtue in them, then God has elected a quality, not an individual.

There's no way around it.

 

[Aaron]

So how can he impose perfection on imperfection?

He creates in me a new heart.

 

[agedman]

There ya go.

That's an honest answer. The ones who choose Christ have more virtue than the ones who don't.

If God has elected "whosoever believeth," and whosoever believeth doeth so because of the presence of a virtue in them, then God has elected a quality, not an individual.

There's no way around it.

As if some merit acquired or established by that person in which God recognizes as righteous virtue that activates God's election?

As you stated, such thinking is having the election of a quality rather then the individual.

That is a violation of John 1.

"12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
​

God empowers not by virtue but by doing nothing. The light is turned on and the persons that do not turn away as all others do, but remains in the light. To those God gives the right (authority, power, endowment) to be His adopted sons.

This is the clear teaching of John 1

 

[thatbrian]

There ya go.

That's an honest answer. The ones who choose Christ have more virtue than the ones who don't.

If God has elected "whosoever believeth," and whosoever believeth doeth so because of the presence of a virtue in them, then God has elected a quality, not an individual.

There's no way around it.

There's also no way around the fact that there is indeed something of one's ability in which to boast. There are, inherent in their system, grounds for boasting, which undermines the whole system, proving it unbiblical.

 

[Reynolds]

What part of you is good enough to come to a Holy God on your own merits?

No part. That is why I said thankfully I don't have to be perfect.

 

[Reformed]

If God has elected "whosoever believeth," and whosoever believeth doeth so because of the presence of a virtue in them, then God has elected a quality, not an individual.

Aaron, this is a very hard mirror to look at for it reveals an equally hard truth. We bring absolutely nothing that can even be considered remotely meritorious to God. We do not even bring good intentions. Romans 3 could not be any clearer. When a sinner comes to Christ, the Holy Spirit has already done a work in the sinner's heart. We are given no other reason than it was due to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:5). In His smiling providence, God prevailed upon the dead sinner's heart and breathed into it new life. My prayer is that God will grant me the ability to plumb even the surface of this truth so that it will create in me a holy gratitude expressed in a life of service.

 

[TCassidy]

No part. That is why I said thankfully I don't have to be perfect.

You seem to have missed the point. Rev said he got saved because he was more humble than his neighbor, but God's standard is perfection in all things. Who meets that standard?