The misleading arguments against Free-Will

[InTheLight]

Again, no it isn't. It can't be. Look up the definition of strawman.

Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Now, if I'm not arguing what you say is my "argument taken to its logical conclusion" it is most definitely a strawman. It's the very definition of it.

You can say my argument makes God to create evil but that is not the same thing as saying I believe that. I don't believe that. Just like I am sure you don't believe that your arguments create the ends we point out. All I'm saying. It's not strawman.

Well, why in the world would someone bring up these extreme positions in a forum conversation where the other person is being directly quoted unless they were insinuating that other person believed them?

Honestly, a lot of people here like to scream STRAWMAN as a way to not deal with the actual argument.

No, they don't want to deal with the STRAWMAN argument, so they label it as a STRAWMAN. Why would someone waste time debating a position they don't believe in?

 

[Iconoclast]

"Revmitchell,

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.

Free will does not exist except in carnal worldly philosophy

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.

They start on a false foundation, it can not end well.

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.

The word without the Spirits internal work will not save sinners.

As Traditionalists we see in scripture, God determined who would be His via election (Ephesians 1:4). This election is not individualistic.

This alone shows the error of this group. Each individual stone is elected by God.

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).

This is contrary to scripture...psalm14:1-3

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.

This is unbiblical, the position is biblically defective.

God determined that belief comes first. God determined that not man.

There is no such thing taught in scripture.

God determined man's ability, man's necessary response to the gospel, God determined the outcomes of man's response.

Adam's fall into sin and death determined man's inability. God does not wait for man.

No one, not reformed brethren nor anyone else gets to minimize that determination made by God in order to prop up a strawman

.

Except God did not do any such thing
.

God determined our response. God does not have to sit and wait for man to will his own salvation, God determined that decision.

This is a contradiction of your own position.You said man has been given the ability, now you say the opposite.

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.

No one takes it out of context. That is a lame excuse. It teaches exactly as it says....not the will of man.

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.

t
this makes no sense and has no support,only Leighton would suggest such an idea.

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.

In jn.1:13, the term not of blood has that covered. You trample over that in a vain effort to avoid truth here in this passage.

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.

We disagree because what you offer here is unbiblical.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Revmitchell,



Free will does not exist except in carnal worldly philosophy



They start on a false foundation, it can not end well.



The word without the Spirits internal work will not save sinners.



This alone shows the error of this group. Each individual stone is elected by God.



This is contrary to scripture...psalm14:1-3



This is unbiblical, the position is biblically defective.


There is no such thing taught in scripture.



Adam's fall into sin and death determined man's inability. God does not wait for man.


.

Except God did not do any such thing
.


This is a contradiction of your own position.You said man has been given the ability, now you say the opposite.


No one takes it out of context. That is a lame excuse. It teaches exactly as it says....not the will of man.

t
this makes no sense and has no support,only Leighton would suggest such an idea.


In jn.1:13, the term not of blood has that covered. You trample over that in a vain effort to avoid truth here in this passage.

We disagree because what you offer here is unbiblical.

And yet another one who ignored the op

 

[Particular]

And yet another one who ignored the op

Rev, it seems all you wanted was to share your opinion and not have anyone share their opinion. Do you think that is realistic in a discussion board.

 

[Dave G]

@Revmitchell

To me, this issue of strawman could easily be sidestepped in favor of a more permanent solution...
Simply take a passage that is being contested, and "exegete" it verse by verse, so that your opponent can see exactly where you differ with them.

From my perspective, you had a good opportunity to avoid any misrepresentation by doing this for John 6:32-40... and you declined.

Question:
How is anyone supposed to know what's on your mind, and get a clear picture of how you understand the Scriptures on any subject, if they never see a verse-by-verse commentary from you on a passage in question?

I think that it would be very helpful for you to do this, Mark, as it would provide certain details into how you see things without having to explain your position time and again in one-line ( or even small paragraph ) summaries.
In fact, I know that it would help me, as I'm "detail-oriented" and love to dig into doctrine and God's every word.

Did I somehow miss these past threads where you developed things verse-by-verse in your own words?
If so, please link them so that both I and the newer people here can get a better handle on exactly what you see and where.



May God bless you in many ways, sir.

 

[Aaron]

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).

Basically saying that God made a way, and those who are better than others will take it.

 

[Iconoclast]

And yet another one who ignored the op

Not at all. We can agree man has a will.
Biblically we can see that the fall into sin and death was devasting.
The OP is built on sand.

 

[Revmitchell]

Basically saying that God made a way, and those who are better than others will take it.

Here is an example of what I am talking about in the op.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not at all. We can agree man has a will.
Biblically we can see that the fall into sin and death was devasting.
The OP is built on sand.

That is your opinion but its not what the op is about

 

[37818]

Not at all. We can agree man has a will.
Biblically we can see that the fall into sin and death was devasting.
The OP is built on sand.

You agree man has a will. Is man free to choose a color between lets say red, green and blue? Of course. So man has what we can call a free will. There is no disagreement man is a self willed being.

Now strickly speaking that term "free will" is not found in the word of God. (The ASV translates words denoting something voluntary as free will).

1. Man because of the fall does not seek God without God's interevention. Romans 3:11. 2 Timothy 2:25.
2. The new birth cannot be caused by man freely choosing to be born again. It is what only God can cause. John 1:13.

 

[Revmitchell]

You agree man has a will. Is man free to choose a color between lets say red, green and blue? Of course. So man has what we can call a free will. There is no disagreement man is a self willed being.

Now strickly speaking that term "free will" is not found in the word of God. (The ASV translates words denoting something voluntary as free will).

1. Man because of the fall does not seek God without God's interevention. Romans 3:11. 2 Timothy 2:25.
2. The new birth cannot be caused by man freely choosing to be born again. It is what only God can cause. John 1:13.

Please do no derail this thread

 

[37818]

Free will does not exist except in carnal worldly philosophy

To me:

Please do no derail this thread

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. . . .

It is agreed man has a will. Man is a self willed being. It is called free will. The specifices of its mispresentation needs to be specified against its strawman arguements.

 

[Revmitchell]

You agree man has a will. Is man free to choose a color between lets say red, green and blue? Of course. So man has what we can call a free will. There is no disagreement man is a self willed being.

Now strickly speaking that term "free will" is not found in the word of God. (The ASV translates words denoting something voluntary as free will).

1. Man because of the fall does not seek God without God's interevention. Romans 3:11. 2 Timothy 2:25.
2. The new birth cannot be caused by man freely choosing to be born again. It is what only God can cause. John 1:13.

Sigh..this thread is about the misrepresentation of it not of the doctrine itself. There is nothing in this post about how our view gets misrepresented.

 

[37818]

Sigh..this thread is about the misrepresentation of it not of the doctrine itself. There is nothing in this post about how our view gets misrepresented.

About misrepresenting of free will, but not how free will is misrepresented.

Are not strawman arguments based on refuting a misrepresention of the view opposed? So either free will is misrepresented in some way or not. And the claim, as I thought I was understand this, was free will is being misrepresented, and then that misreprentation is used to refute free will. So what would the misrepresentation be?

 

[Revmitchell]

About misrepresenting of free will, but not how free will is misrepresented.

Are not strawman arguments based on refuting a misrepresention of the view opposed? So either free will is misrepresented in some way or not. And the claim, as I thought I was understand this, was free will is being misrepresented, and then that misreprentation is used to refute free will. So what would the misrepresentation be?

Please see the op

 

[Dave G]

Part 1:

Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I agree.

Either way misnomer or not the position of those who reject the reformed definition of election are still being misrepresented.

Then let's deal with the position, and I will do my best not to misrepresent it:

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).

I've only recently heard the term "Traditionalist" being used to describe those who believe in a General Atonement, yet also hold to "Eternal Security"...
Before roughly 10-15 years ago, I'd never heard or seen the term.

With that said, I'll break down your points above and deal with the passages used in a step-by-step fashion:

1) " So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." ( Romans 10:17 ).
a) How is faith provided?
By hearing.
Please define "hearing".

Is it in context with Matthew 11:15, Matthew 13:9, Matthew 13:43, Mark 4:9, Mark 4:23, Luke 8:8, Luke 14:35, Revelation 2:7, Revelation 2:11, Revelation 3:6, Revelation 13:3, Revelation 13:9, or outside of that context?
Is "hearing" within the context of Matthew 11:27, Matthew 13:10-12, Mark 4:11, Luke 8:10, and John 8:47, or outside of it?

b) What constitutes the "word of God"?
Written, spoken, or both?



2) " For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." ( Romans 1:16 ).

A) Clearly stated, this verse says that Paul is not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.
It is also the power of God unto salvation...to whom?
Everyone that believes.

Therefore, it is not the power of God to those who do not believe.
Please see 1 Corinthians 1:18.

That gospel, the authors ability to write it (1 Peter 1:20), the value of the truth in it (Psalms 19:7), the strength of the truth in it (Psalms 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.

I've edited the Scripture references above slightly, so that some of the ones not formerly available to read in this forum's built-in Scripture reference, would now show up and be available.
I disagree with the bolded, but not overly so.
Apart from the revelation of the word of God, no one would believe on Christ.

I also make this distinction:

The primary source for our faith is not the word of God...that is the secondary source.
The primary source is Jesus Christ Himself:

" looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." ( Hebrews 12:2 ).

In other places, it is clearly stated to be "of" ( by or from, originating with ) Jesus Christ:

Romans 3:22
Galatians 2:16.
Galatians 2:20.
Galatians 3:22.
Philippians 3:9.

Therefore, the Gospel or word of God itself, is not the source of the believer's faith in the final analysis, but rather Jesus Christ Himself... their Deliverer, Saviour and Provider;
For without God, they can do nothing ( Philippians 4:13 ).

 

[Dave G]

Part 2:

As Traditionalists we see in scripture, God determined who would be His via election (Ephesians 1:4).

Amen.

This election is not individualistic.

I disagree.
It is primarily individualistic.

Stated point-blank:

" Blessed [is the man whom] thou choosest, and causest to approach [unto thee], [that] he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, [even] of thy holy temple." ( Psalms 65:4 ).
"Thou choosest" = Individual
If that is not enough, we have multiple instances of individual's being chosen to salvation in the words themselves:

" And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 )
"as many" being both corporate ( a group ) and being individuals that make up a group.

a) How many believed?
As many as were ordained to eternal life.
How many did not believe?
As many as were not ordained to eternal life.


" And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." ( Romans 8:28-30 ).

a) Who are the ones being spoken of here?
"Whom" = Individuals that make up a group.
"Them" = Individuals that make up a group

Note:
For the cross-reference definition of "foreknow" ( Greek: "προγινώσκω", transliterated into English as, "proginosko", "before-to-know" ), please see Jeremiah 1:5.


" What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth." ( Romans 9:14-18 ).

a) Who are the ones being spoken of here?
"Whom" = Individuals.
"Him" = Individuals.
"Thee" = Individual.

" Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" ( Romans 9:19-24 )

a) Who are the ones being spoken of here?
"Who" = Individual
"O man" = Individual
"The thing formed" = Individual
"Me" = Individual
"Vessel" = Individual ( see 1 Peter 3:7 for the definition of "vessel" ).

In verse 24, "us" and "whom" = Corporate, but are individuals that make up a group, yet again.

It is definitely individualistic, and this fact can be reinforced with many other Scriptures that state that His covenant is with people, not just people-groups.
Abraham is one of them.

" After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I [am] thy shield, [and] thy exceeding great reward." ( Genesis 15:1 ).

 

[Dave G]

Part 3:

Election is described as pertaining to those who are in Christ.

Agreed.

God determined that those who believe would be in Christ (John 1:12).

God has determined that those who are "in Christ" would believe:

" But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." ( John 10:26 ).
One must be "of His sheep" in order to believe...not the other way around.
Being chosen "in Him" ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ) is how one goes on to believe and be sealed with the "earnest" of their inheritance, the Holy Spirit ( Ephesians 1:13 ).

" All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." ( John 6:39 ).
Only those given to Christ by the Father, shall come to Him.

a) Who is the passage speaking about?
"All" = Individuals that make up a group.
"Him" = Individuals.

" He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God." ( John 8:47 )

a) Who is this passage speaking about?
"He" = Individual.
"Ye" = Individuals that make up a group.

What can be said about this passage?
Only a person that is "of God" can hear God's words.

Reinforced here as well as in many other places within His word:

" He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." ( Matthew 13:11 ).


Therefore, "hearing" is limited to those that "have ears to hear", perfectly agreeing with other passages that define who hears, just as Romans 10:8 shows, by Paul's declaring that the word of God was "nigh thee", and "in thy heart" ( See the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 for the word that stays in one's heart and brings forth fruit ) to the believers at Rome.

 

[Dave G]

Part 4:

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.

I agree.
The argument cannot be made that man's will determines who is saved, because Scripture clearly states that man's will does not ( John 1:13, James 1:18 ).

Being born again is by God's will, not man's will.

God determined that belief comes first.

Counterpoint, not "strawman":

God determined that those who were ordained to eternal life, would believe.
Again, see Acts of the Apostles 13:48.

God determined that those that should be saved, He would add to the church ( Acts of the Apostles 2:47 ).
Belief of the Gospel comes second, after election.

Only those given to Christ by the Father, will come to Him ( John 6:64-65 ).
Christ only gives eternal life to as many as the Father has given to Him, and no more ( John 17:2-3 ).

Therefore, belief of the Gospel, from the heart, is completely dependent upon God ( John 6:29 ), and there are no variables that impact the names written in the Lamb's Book of Life, such as how hard men work in order to get the word out.

God determined man's ability, man's necessary response to the gospel, God determined the outcomes of man's response.

Agreed.

No one, not reformed brethren nor anyone else gets to minimize that determination made by God in order to prop up a strawman.

Again, I agree.
To me, there's no need to resort to dishonest tactics like "strawman" in order to prove doctrine.

Simple point and counterpoint should be enough.
However, asking questions in order to provoke deeper thought into what the Scriptures actually state, and to urge the reader to look closer at the very words themselves, is not "strawman".

I believe that these "leading questions" should be proposed carefully, so as to avoid the possibility of those who disagree with a particular view of doctrine, are deprived of the opportunity to label it as "strawman".

 

[Iconoclast]

37818,

You agree man has a will. Is man free to choose a color between lets say red, green and blue?

Yes, we make hundreds of choices every day.. Choice IS NOT the issue. The fall has left man unable to choose most things God desires out of a pure heart. Man is defiled and needs a new heart that can influence his choices from a biblical Spirit-wrought framework.

Of course. So man has what we can call a free will.

No...I do not think we can say that at any time ever.
Free choices yes, the will no.
rom7:
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

There is no disagreement man is a self willed being.

Agreed

Now strickly speaking that term "free will" is not found in the word of God. (The ASV translates words denoting something voluntary as free will).

There is no support for that idea. What was voluntary were offerings not commanded by law.

1. Man because of the fall does not seek God without God's interevention. Romans 3:11. 2 Timothy 2:25.
2. The new birth cannot be caused by man freely choosing to be born again. It is what only God can cause. John 1:13.

Agreed.