The misleading arguments against Free-Will

Thank you for the explaination. As someone who holds to the doctrines of grace, I will offer my observations. Since you refer to yourself as a traditionalist, I'll refer to myself as a biblicist.

Firstly, those who claim we biblicists believe people are just robots, are also using a strawman argument. I also believe in the necessity of the gospel, as God's ordained method of bringing the elect to salavation. I believe salvation is appropriated when faith in Jesus is expressed. Man has a part in appropriating salvation, though it is essentially a response to what God had done.

I understand your argument, but disagree. I do not believe mankind is inherently able to believe the gospel. I believe God not only intervenes by giving the gospel, but also intervenes by Holy Spirit that convicts a person of the truth of the gospel and draws them to faith in Jesus.

Only the elect are so moved upon by Holy Spirit to salvation, and all whom God has chosen will respond in faith. Those who are not chosen by God are unable to desire to believe the gospel.

I disagree with your interpretation of John 1. John clearly says that those who are the children of God obtain that status by the will of God, not the will of man and not by being a descendent of Abramham.

I appreciate your civil discussion of this issue.

Peace to you

 

There tends to be three variant views on God's work in salvation. I will use a metaphor to explain.
We all see God as the one who graciously gives the gift of salvation, but we vary on how God gives this gift.
For the pure, free-will advocate, God places his gift of salvation somewhere, hopefully in a well trafficked area, and all who pass by are welcome to inspect the gift and perhaps they will even choose to open it. If they open the gift, they can choose to use it, or they can also choose to throw it away and move on.
For the semi-pelagian, God places his gift in a certain location and then draws people to that gift. He shows them where the gift is located, but when the person gets there, the person still has to decide if they will open the gift or walk away. If they choose to open the gift, they may find such Joy in the gift that they remain enjoying it. But, there is a chance the gift may be neglected and tossed out by the individual.
For the monergist, God has created a special gift for that person. God knows the person's name and has crafted this gift from before the foundation of the world. God calls the person to Himself where He then presents this beautifully wrapped gift that clearly has the person's name on the wrapping. God gives the gift and God unwraps the gift (because the person can't unwrap it her/himself). God displays the gift that is specifically for them and places the gift on that person so that all who pass by can see the splendor of the Gift He has given. God gives this person a big hug and welcomes the person into His family, telling the person that s/he has all the privileges that come with membership and family. God let's them know they are uniquely His beloved and He is pleased to call them daughter/son.

 

I told you, it is a metaphor. I welcome you enlightening me as to where the metaphor is wrong.

 

So, the person is chosen and the gift is given, with that person's name on it?

 

Those are the metaphors I used for the three variants. Change the metaphor if you wish.

 

Your opinion. Perhaps I struck a nerve.

 

Sorry, but this sounds like a cop-out from you. If you desire to end the conversation, that's fine. But you making short, snide comments and not backing up your comments with anything beyond a short, snide comment is perceived by me as you not having a very solid argument.
I used the metaphor so that people can understand a more complex argument. You refuse to correct the metaphor. I'll stick with it until you can correct it.

 

No luck needed. I have used this metaphor with many Christians, both Arminians and Calvinists who nod and agree.
You don't agree, but you refuse to say why. I'm not going to drill you. You can disagree and not explain why. I can keep using the metaphor until someone explains why it's wrong.

 

You think I am lying about using the metaphor. Big deal. You haven't even made a coherent rebuttal so at this point I can't tell if you have a clue. Perhaps it is you who doesn't know what he is talking about. Until you actually address where my metaphor is wrong, you are just blowing wind.

 

I read your first post. It doesn't address my metaphor.