The misleading arguments against Free-Will

[canadyjd]

Revmitchell, can you explain how you view the doctrine of "calling" or "drawing", if you see them as the same, and how Holy Spirit is involved? Or, do you see the gospel alone as God's method of "calling" or "drawing"?

Peace to you

 

[Particular]

Yes it does. But here is what happens. I start a thread and make a realistic and cogent argument and a Calvinist comes along and tries to set the debate on his terms. Color me surprised. Sorry bub I don't debate on your terms. Your "metaphor" was uneducated and severely flawed. Now if you want to debate the op then we can have a discussion.

So, you just want to express your opinion and anything or anyone who expresses a different view is not tolerated. At least now I know how you think a debate works.

 

[Revmitchell]

So, you just want to express your opinion and anything or anyone who expresses a different view is not tolerated. At least now I know how you think a debate works.

And yet another misrepresentation of others view and words. Seeing a pattern here.

 

[InTheLight]

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

God does not place his gift of salvation "hopefully in a well-trafficked area" where people might hope to find it. Nor does God place his gift of salvation in a "certain area" (a static place) where people can look it over like merchandise.

Instead, God has commanded his followers to go out and tell the WHOLE WORLD about his gift of salvation. The gift of salvation and everything we need to know about it can be found in a written account, the Bible. Moreover, God has seen to it that the Bible is readily available to just about anybody, or that the Bible is easily given to anybody. It's not placed somewhere waiting to be discovered.

So your two metaphors of how free-willers and semi-pelagians view the gift of salvation is flawed. (And once again reeks of mind reading and assuming someone believes a certain way.)

Finally, your monergist metaphor is wrong because in this illustration the gift recipient is completely inert--they don't participate in receiving the gift at all, There is no provision for the possibility that the intended recipient will reject the gift.

You claim that God custom crafted the gift of salvation for individuals from before the foundation of the world. Once again, I will ask you why does Paul say that he received this gift before other believers? (Romans 16:7) Why does the Bible say that, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21) if they were saved before preachers even existed?

 

[Reynolds]

What has been happening and even recently is that what is referred to as "Free-Will" is often misrepresented and then argued against based on the misrepresentation. This is a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. The "Idea of Free-Will" is presented as being divorced from God's plan and purposes and set up as strictly something man does on his own without God at all. I suppose it is believed that in order for it to truly be free will then it has to be. Maybe that is a legitimate argument. Either way misnomer or not the position of those who reject the reformed definition of election are still being misrepresented.

As we Traditionalists see in scripture, God determined that He would provide faith (Romans 10:17) through His inspired written word, the gospel (Romans 1:16). That gospel, the authors ability to write it (I Peter 1:20), the value of the truth in it (Psalm 19:7), the strength of the truth in it (Psalm 19:9), the power of the truth in it (Hebrews 4:12). God did that. The primary source for our faith has been provided by God. Without it we cannot have faith. We would be left to ourselves to die without God now and for eternity.

As Traditionalists we see in scripture, God determined who would be His via election (Ephesians 1:4). This election is not individualistic. It wasn't with the nation of Israel and it never has been. Election is described as pertaining to those who are in Christ. God determined that those who believe would be in Christ (John 1:12). Since God determined that there can be no argument made that somehow man's will becomes a determining factor when God determined man should have the ability to choose or not to choose Him. God determined that belief comes first. God determined that not man. God determined man's ability, man's necessary response to the gospel, God determined the outcomes of man's response. No one, not reformed brethren nor anyone else gets to minimize that determination made by God in order to prop up a strawman. God determined our response. God does not have to sit and wait for man to will his own salvation, God determined that decision.

Those who would jump on the next verse in John ch 1. vs. 13 and yank the word "will" out of its context in order to fit into a presupposition miss the intent of the author. The word will is not in the context of whether man determines his own salvation. It is in the context of how the Jews saw salvation. John was not working to fend off Arminians he was addressing Jews who thought that being a descendant of Abraham (the blood)(Matt 3:9) following the "law" (the flesh)(Romans 9:32), and being related to a patriarchal head (the will) was the means of salvation.

Now one may disagree with some or all of this but to say that in our belief we are self determine or that God must wait on us to determine our own salvation is a strawman, it is uncharitable, and completely false. It is completely God and no strawman otherwise can change that.

In all fairness Rev, the sound Calvinists on the board are not the ones doing this.

 

[Revmitchell]

In all fairness Rev, the sound Calvinists on the board are not the ones doing this.

They are all doing it

 

[Particular]

And yet another misrepresentation of others view and words. Seeing a pattern here.

Irrelevant

 

[Particular]

God does not place his gift of salvation "hopefully in a well-trafficked area" where people might hope to find it. Nor does God place his gift of salvation in a "certain area" (a static place) where people can look it over like merchandise.

Instead, God has commanded his followers to go out and tell the WHOLE WORLD about his gift of salvation. The gift of salvation and everything we need to know about it can be found in a written account, the Bible. Moreover, God has seen to it that the Bible is readily available to just about anybody, or that the Bible is easily given to anybody. It's not placed somewhere waiting to be discovered.

The Bible is not available to millions and millions of people. They are unreached. They don't know who Jesus is. They will die in their sins without ever hearing about Jesus.
Second, many people who are mentally handicapped will never comprehend the good news. They will not know of this gift.
Has God failed them all by relying on humans who haven't got the message into every place possible?

So your two metaphors of how free-willers and semi-pelagians view the gift of salvation is flawed. (And once again reeks of mind reading and assuming someone believes a certain way.)

No mind reading necessary. The choice to open the gift to which they are drawn, by God, is still left up to the person. Open it. Use it if you wish. Throw it away if you wish.

Finally, your monergist metaphor is wrong because in this illustration the gift recipient is completely inert--they don't participate in receiving the gift at all, There is no provision for the possibility that the intended recipient will reject the gift.

Indeed, there is no possibility that the person will reject the gift. Every child, when given a gift with their name on it from their Father, will rip into that present as soon as they receive it from their Father. They won't question it and reject it. How much more does God the Father know how to give good gifts?

You claim that God custom crafted the gift of salvation for individuals from before the foundation of the world. Once again, I will ask you why does Paul say that he received this gift before other believers? (Romans 16:7) Why does the Bible say that, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21) if they were saved before preachers even existed?

In Romans, Paul is merely looking at his lifetime and seeing that these men had received their gifts earlier than he had.

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Read the whole passage and see what God says. Notice God's will destroys the perishing and God's will saves those who believe. It is the power of God that saves.i

1 Corinthians 1:18-21 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

 

[1689Dave]

What has been happening and even recently is that what is referred to as "Free-Will" is often misrepresented and then argued against based on the misrepresentation. This is a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. The "Idea of Free-Will" is presented as being divorced from God's plan and purposes and set up as strictly something man does on his own without God at all. I suppose it is believed that in order for it to truly be free will then it has to be. Maybe that is a legitimate argument. Either way misnomer or not the position of those who reject the reformed definition of election are still being misrepresented.

As we Traditionalists see in scripture, God determined that He would provide faith (Romans 10:17) through His inspired written word, the gospel (Romans 1:16). That gospel, the authors ability to write it (I Peter 1:20), the value of the truth in it (Psalm 19:7), the strength of the truth in it (Psalm 19:9), the power of the truth in it (Hebrews 4:12). God did that. The primary source for our faith has been provided by God. Without it we cannot have faith. We would be left to ourselves to die without God now and for eternity.

As Traditionalists we see in scripture, God determined who would be His via election (Ephesians 1:4). This election is not individualistic. It wasn't with the nation of Israel and it never has been. Election is described as pertaining to those who are in Christ. God determined that those who believe would be in Christ (John 1:12). Since God determined that there can be no argument made that somehow man's will becomes a determining factor when God determined man should have the ability to choose or not to choose Him. God determined that belief comes first. God determined that not man. God determined man's ability, man's necessary response to the gospel, God determined the outcomes of man's response. No one, not reformed brethren nor anyone else gets to minimize that determination made by God in order to prop up a strawman. God determined our response. God does not have to sit and wait for man to will his own salvation, God determined that decision.

Those who would jump on the next verse in John ch 1. vs. 13 and yank the word "will" out of its context in order to fit into a presupposition miss the intent of the author. The word will is not in the context of whether man determines his own salvation. It is in the context of how the Jews saw salvation. John was not working to fend off Arminians he was addressing Jews who thought that being a descendant of Abraham (the blood)(Matt 3:9) following the "law" (the flesh)(Romans 9:32), and being related to a patriarchal head (the will) was the means of salvation.

Now one may disagree with some or all of this but to say that in our belief we are self determine or that God must wait on us to determine our own salvation is a strawman, it is uncharitable, and completely false. It is completely God and no strawman otherwise can change that.

Free Will is a work of the flesh. Law depends on it. People are judged by how they use it. But the gospel is not law. You must transpose the gospel into law (a false gospel) and turn grace into works before free will can become a means of salvation.

This means salvation is not a supernatural work of God. But a legalistic work of the flesh. And the flesh cannot discern spiritual truth. So it only chooses a Christ that is acceptable to the sinful flesh. And finds the biblical Christ repugnant to the senses.

 

[Revmitchell]

Free Will is a work of the flesh. Law depends on it. People are judged by how they use it. But the gospel is not law. You must transpose the gospel into law (a false gospel) and turn grace into works before free will can become a means of salvation.

This means salvation is not a supernatural work of God. But a legalistic work of the flesh. And the flesh cannot discern spiritual truth. So it only chooses a Christ that is acceptable to the sinful flesh. And finds the biblical Christ repugnant to the senses.

Ok you have said nothing here, you made a lot of the same old claims but have not dealt with the op.

 

[1689Dave]

Ok you have said nothing here, you made a lot of the same old claims but have not dealt with the op.

It deals with the original post disproving the "straw man" claim. How so? Because it acknowledges free will as the basis for responsibility in every day life. But it also shows free will cannot understand spiritual truth. So it only acts on what it perceives to be truth.

 

[Reformed1689]

As Traditionalists we see in scripture, God determined who would be His via election (Ephesians 1:4). This election is not individualistic. It wasn't with the nation of Israel and it never has been. Election is described as pertaining to those who are in Christ. God determined that those who believe would be in Christ (John 1:12). Since God determined that there can be no argument made that somehow man's will becomes a determining factor when God determined man should have the ability to choose or not to choose Him. God determined that belief comes first. God determined that not man. God determined man's ability, man's necessary response to the gospel, God determined the outcomes of man's response. No one, not reformed brethren nor anyone else gets to minimize that determination made by God in order to prop up a strawman. God determined our response. God does not have to sit and wait for man to will his own salvation, God determined that decision.

Here is the problem with this whole post. This paragraph is filled with untruth. Election IS individualistic. It is not God looking down a corridor to see who would choose Him because we know from Romans that NOBODY would choose Him. God determined that decision by basis of his own good pleasure. Romans 9.

 

[Revmitchell]

Here is the problem with this whole post. This paragraph is filled with untruth. Election IS individualistic. It is not God looking down a corridor to see who would choose Him because we know from Romans that NOBODY would choose Him. God determined that decision by basis of his own good pleasure. Romans 9.

Misses the point of this thread

 

[Revmitchell]

It deals with the original post disproving the "straw man" claim. How so? Because it acknowledges free will as the basis for responsibility in every day life. But it also shows free will cannot understand spiritual truth. So it only acts on what it perceives to be truth.

Sigh when you can deal with the op let me know

 

[1689Dave]

Sigh when you can deal with the op let me know

How is it not dealt with on the "straw man" charge? Law depends on free will. The gospel is not Law but grace.

 

[Reformed1689]

Misses the point of this thread

Then what is the point?

 

[Revmitchell]

Then what is the point?

Friend, you created another strawman in your last post. I never argued that God looks down the corridor of time. I posted my position not to debate those doctrines but to show what I hold to which is different, in some areas, to what I am often told I hold to.

This thread is about the habit of creating caricatures of the position of those with whom we disagree with which in the end misrepresents their position. Particular's original post in this thread is a prime example. What needs to happen is that we need to take the position of our opponents exactly as they say it and argue from that position. We need to avoid saying "If you believe this then this other thing must be true and it is wrong because......"

This thread is about how we deal with each others positions not the doctrines specifically themselves.

To be fair it is done on both sides but I would say that it comes from the reformed side far more often. This thread is about "The misleading arguments against free will" We are dealing with the "misleading" i.e. incorrect caricatures or characterizations.

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell, can you explain how you view the doctrine of "calling" or "drawing", if you see them as the same, and how Holy Spirit is involved? Or, do you see the gospel alone as God's method of "calling" or "drawing"?

Peace to you

Yes the drawing is done by the gospel. The gospel is not divorced from the Holy Spirit. See my op.

 

[Reformed1689]

To be fair it is done on both sides but I would say that it comes from the reformed side far more often

Of course you think that. It is clear none of you understand the Reformed position. At least not in what you post.

 

[Revmitchell]

Of course you think that. It is clear none of you understand the Reformed position. At least not in what you post.

Maybe there is some truth to that but that is not what this thread is about.