The misleading arguments against Free-Will

[Dave G]

Part 5:

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

I agree.
God determined who would respond, as well as the response.

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.

That is your opinion, and it is, of course, yours to express.

I happen to disagree with you, and will read and understand Scripture the way I believe God has showed me, and not according to an established theology or set of teachings.
I don't believe I'm missing anything, but I also ask that if you believe that I am, please point it out to me.

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.

Again, I see this as your opinion and I note is as such.

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.

I believe that the Spirit inspired John to write things that would give all the glory to God.
In other words, precisely what the Spirit inspired him to write...the truth.

So, he was not working to fend off "Arminians", but was indeed working to inform God's children ( the reader with "ears to hear" ), that salvation is entirely of God, start to finish.

It is truly "of the Lord" ( Psalms 62:1, Jonah 2:9 ).

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.

I agree most wholeheartedly, sir, and I for one will do my level best to avoid "strawman", as it is completely dishonest, deceptive, and definitely not something that God's children, who are commanded to be above reproach, should ever engage in.

It is a debate tactic that the men of this world, who couldn't care less about God's commands, resort to in order to gain the upper hand in a political sense.
If anyone ever sees me do this, please call me on it.

However, for those of you reading this, please do not yell, "strawman!" if someone asks a leading question in order to provoke deeper thought into what the words on the page actually say.
That is not the same as intentionally taking something a person says, and then carefully building up an argument against that, in order to tear the person ( or their argument ) down.

There is a difference.


Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your thread, and I make my apologies for my long and involved breakdown of your OP.
May God bless you richly.

 

[Revmitchell]

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 question 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, having the opportunity to label it as "strawman".

I am responding to this because this is the only portion that actually deals with the op. No no they are stawman statements if they insist we hold to something we both did not claim and in fact deny. What happens so often is once we deny the strawman what we are told is "You may deny it but that is what you believe."

David calls it the logical conclusion. The problem is one cannot honestly argue against what has not been laid claim to.

 

[Particular]

It seems that one of the issues here is that the OP declares his definition of Arminian belief is the authoritative definition and anyone that shares a view not in line with his is therefore speaking falsely. However, could it be that the OP, while speaking for his own personal view, is not speaking for all Arminians? Thus, others are not speaking falsely, they are simply not mimicking the view of the OP.

 

[Dave G]

I am responding to this because this is the only portion that actually deals with the op.

Point taken.

But you know how I like to address things all in one "fell-swoop".
@TCassidy has called me on it on multiple occasions.

What happens so often is once we deny the strawman what we are told is "You may deny it but that is what you believe."

To me, you have a point.

I understand your concern, and agree that, while that is a leap or connection that many may make ( and is "logical" ), to make a leap like that without first checking to see if its accurate is mis-representative, in my opinion.

I've personally seen it done by both sides, and have been tempted ( and have actually done it ) in the past, because it is all to easy to do.

David calls it the logical conclusion.

I don't disagree with him in this, but the conclusion can be more subjective, and not purely objective.

Reasoning through one "side" or the other, many things can and are said in support of such thingsas "logical conclusions".

The problem is one cannot honestly argue against what has not been laid claim to.

Of that we both seem to agree.

That's why, despite my posting in sections like this, I don't use them as the platforms they were intended for..."debate".
I use them as proffering explanations in "point-and-counterpoint" format, and not as something that someone from a secular institution or a political venue might be used to.

That is part of why I will do my best not to argue from a point of something that has not been laid claim to, but from the point of something being declared.

 

[Dave G]

It seems that one of the issues here is that the OP declares his definition of Arminian belief is the authoritative definition and anyone that shares a view not in line with his is therefore speaking falsely.

And why not?

Anyone who teaches God's word is going to do the same, as I see it.
But as teachers, they should be highly sensitive to the fact that God will hold them accountable for teaching in error.

However, could it be that the OP, while speaking for his own personal view, is not speaking for all Arminians?

From my own personal experiences, "Traditionalists" do not consider themselves to be "Arminians", since they do not believe and teach loss of salvation.

They do, however believe and teach roughly the other 4 "points", in my opinion.

Thus, others are not speaking falsely, they are simply not mimicking the view of the OP.

I'm not sure I understand that one.

 

[Revmitchell]

I understand your concern, and agree that, while that is a leap or connection that many may make ( and is "logical" ), to make a leap like that without first checking to see if its accurate is mis-representative, in my opinion.

I've personally seen it done by both sides, and have been tempted ( and have actually done it ) in the past, because it is all to easy to do.

I don't disagree with him in this, but the conclusion can be more subjective, and not purely objective.

Reasoning through one "side" or the other, many things can and are said in support of such thingsas "logical conclusions".

Of that we both seem to agree.

That's why, despite my posting in sections like this, I don't use them as the platforms they were intended for..."debate".
I use them as proffering explanations in "point-and-counterpoint" format, and not as something that someone from a secular institution or a political venue might be used to.

That is part of why I will do my best not to argue from a point of something that has not been laid claim to, but from the point of something being declared.

Well I appreciate your integrity on this and your heart. I am hoping this thread may make some stop and think before laying out what others believe. Maybe we all should stick to only presenting our own beliefs as counter to what others believe.

 

[Particular]

And why not?

Anyone who teaches God's word is going to do the same, as I see it.
But as teachers, they should be highly sensitive to the fact that God will hold them accountable for teaching in error.

From my own personal experiences, "Traditionalists" do not consider themselves to be "Arminians", since they do not believe and teach loss of salvation.

They do, however believe and teach roughly the other 4 "points", in my opinion.

Thanks for sharing. I see what I am missing. I have never heard of a "traditionalist" as a nuanced version between Calvin and Arminius. Perhaps it's my naivete that urks the OP. I will have to research what a "traditionalist" is, what they believe, and when that nuanced view/title came to be.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

Well you are the only one who thinks that way. I have asked several others and they understand the op clearly and what you are saying aint it.

 

[Dave G]

Thanks for sharing. I see what I am missing. I have never heard of a "traditionalist" as a nuanced version between Calvin and Arminius. Perhaps it's my naivete that urks the OP. I will have to research what a "traditionalist" is, what they believe, and when that nuanced view/title came to be.

I first believed the Gospel in an "IB" church, and attended "IFB" and "IB" churches for over 25 years from 1978 until roughly 2006.
Essentially, "Traditionalism" is what "General Baptists" / "Regular Baptists" have held to for several centuries... again in my opinion.

 

[Alan Gross]

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.

lost souls are divorced from God.

Step aside.

 

[Revmitchell]

lost souls are divorced from God.

Step aside.

Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?????

 

[InTheLight]

Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?????

No.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

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

You state that law depends on free will. Are you referring to current civil law or the law of the Old Testament? It seems in either case, if the will of the individual convicts, then it is not free.

 

[Aaron]

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

It's what you're saying. Election is not an individual thing. The way is provided. One man is saved and another is not, because one made a good decision, and the other made an evil one.

One did better than the other. Not because of God, but because ...?

 

[MartyF]

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.

I love this cartoon.

View attachment upload_2019-10-20_23-8-24.jpeg

 

[MartyF]

Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?????

I thought he is saying that God has irrevocably decided who is going to burn in hell and you had better step aside and let him by.

Basically, he’s not adding anything.

 

[Aaron]

I love this cartoon.

View attachment 3274

Ever and anon the cry of the noncalvinist is, Why doth He yet find fault?

 

[Revmitchell]

Ever and anon the cry of the noncalvinist is, Why doth He yet find fault?

Another strawman

 

[Revmitchell]

I thought he is saying that God has irrevocably decided who is going to burn in hell and you had better step aside and let him by.

Basically, he’s not adding anything.

If that is the case it would be another example of a strawman

 

[Revmitchell]

It seems that one of the issues here is that the OP declares his definition of Arminian belief is the authoritative definition and anyone that shares a view not in line with his is therefore speaking falsely. However, could it be that the OP, while speaking for his own personal view, is not speaking for all Arminians? Thus, others are not speaking falsely, they are simply not mimicking the view of the OP.

Strawman