• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The misleading arguments against Free-Will

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
For Arminian/free will Gospel to actually fir the scriptures, we have to ask just what doe sit mean to have sin natures, dead in our sins and transgressions , and now enemies of God? IF we can show in scriptures where somehow sinners in that state can now freely decide to now love kesus and obey God all of a sudden?
Click to expand...

Strawman
 
Noah Hirsch

Noah Hirsch

Active Member
Particular said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am a Calvinist, but I do not think that Arminianism is necessarily the same thing as semi-Pelagianism. Someone who identifies as an Arminian could hold to semi-Pelagian beliefs, but neither classic Arminianism (a.k.a. Remonstrant Arminianism as articulated in the Five Articles of Remonstrance), nor Wesleyan Arminianism, nor Reformed Arminianism is semi-Pelagian in their view of total depravity. They still believe in total depravity like Calvinists, but they disagree with us on the doctrine of irresistible grace (effectual calling). What they believe is something called “prevenient grace.” Their doctrine of prevenient grace and its necessity for it to enable a sinner to believe distinguishes them from semi-Pelagians. Semi-Pelagians do not believe man’s will is by nature the sin of sin, Remonstrant and Wesleyan Arminianism does believe in the natural bondage of man’s will to sin.
 
Particular

Particular

Well-Known Member
Noah Hirsch said:
I am a Calvinist, but I do not think that Arminianism is necessarily the same thing as semi-Pelagianism. Someone who identifies as an Arminian could hold to semi-Pelagian beliefs, but neither classic Arminianism (a.k.a. Remonstrant Arminianism as articulated in the Five Articles of Remonstrance), nor Wesleyan Arminianism, nor Reformed Arminianism is semi-Pelagian in their view of total depravity. They still believe in total depravity like Calvinists, but they disagree with us on the doctrine of irresistible grace (effectual calling). What they believe is something called “prevenient grace.” Their doctrine of prevenient grace and its necessity for it to enable a sinner to believe distinguishes them from semi-Pelagians. Semi-Pelagians do not believe man’s will is by nature the sin of sin, Remonstrant and Wesleyan Arminianism does believe in the natural bondage of man’s will to sin.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the overarching term is... synergist.
 
Noah Hirsch

Noah Hirsch

Active Member
Revmitchell said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think one of the problems is that different people mean different things by the term “free will.” As far as that goes as something who believes in absolute divine sovereignty, absolute predestination, monergistic regeneration, etc. I find that the issue is more of what we actually mean than what terms we use. One of the issues in the election vs. free will debate is communicating what we mean. There are Arminians who misrepresent Calvinists. There are Calvinists who misrepresent Arminians. There are Arminians who misrepresent classic Arminianism. There are Calvinists who misrepresent Calvinists.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Noah Hirsch said:
I think one of the problems is that different people mean different things by the term “free will.” As far as that goes as something who believes in absolute divine sovereignty, absolute predestination, monergistic regeneration, etc. I find that the issue is more of what we actually mean than what terms we use. One of the issues in the election vs. free will debate is communicating what we mean. There are Arminians who misrepresent Calvinists. There are Calvinists who misrepresent Arminians. There are Arminians who misrepresent classic Arminianism. There are Calvinists who misrepresent Calvinists.
Click to expand...

I am only concerned with what goes on on this board and its long history. The issue is not different definitions it is poor an pejorative type characterizations.
 
H

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Noah Hirsch said:
I think one of the problems is that different people mean different things by the term “free will.” As far as that goes as something who believes in absolute divine sovereignty, absolute predestination, monergistic regeneration, etc. I find that the issue is more of what we actually mean than what terms we use. One of the issues in the election vs. free will debate is communicating what we mean.
Click to expand...
YUP. :Thumbsup similar terms, different dictionaries.
Often we need to drill down to what the other means with the words used.
 
Dave G

Dave G

Well-Known Member
MartyF said:
How does the cartoon differ from the Calvinist interpretation?
Click to expand...
As I see it, that cartoon is a blasphemous caricature made from the viewpoint of someone who is bitterly against God's choosing of the sinner to salvation, Marty.

It is representative of the kinds of things that we, as believers, should never stray into.
It also has no place anywhere in polite, or even not-so-polite discussion.

I speak from the experience of having been on the delivering end, as well as the receiving end.:Redface
 
Last edited:
Dave G

Dave G

Well-Known Member
MartyF said:
This might help.

Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists | Baptist Theology
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, that article does not describe all "Baptists"...

Baptists have been historically "Particular", as well as "General".
Depending on the viewpoint, some say "Baptists" started out as "Particular"...some say not.

Just because someone wrote an article defending the "election is not individualistic" perspective, does not mean that all Baptists subscribe, or have subscribed to it.

Now, in my opinion, it does do a rather decent job of representing the viewpoint of basically mixing "Prevenient Grace" with "Eternal Security", as I see "Traditionlism / Provisionalism" teaching.
David Cloud's site and several others also seem to mirror what I sat under for much of my post-conversion life.
 
Last edited:
Noah Hirsch

Noah Hirsch

Active Member
Dave Gilbert said:
With respect, it doesn't help, Marty.
That is a fairly recent article, and not entirely representative of Baptists...especially the further one goes back in "Baptist History".

Baptists have been historically "Particular", as well as "General".
Depending on the viewpoint, some say "Baptists" started out as "Particular"...some say not.

Just because someone wrote an article defending the "election is not individualistic" perspective, does not mean all Baptists subscribe, or have subscribed to it.
Click to expand...

Not only have Baptists historically been divided on the issue of divine sovereignty in man’s salvation vs. free will, but there also have been historically some Baptists who would qualify as Pelagians as distinct from both Calvinism and Arminianism. Some Baptists went so far as denying either that all men are by nature sinners or stand condemned in Adam, and thus were Pelagian in their understanding of original sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top