Violation

It is in fact the very same principle used by naturalists and those who sought in the last century to rationalise miracles away. They said that God would not violate the Laws of nature that he had put in place.

I don't know about that. Arminians seem to believe that the will is unimpaired by the effects of sin, that one is equally able to choose God or Satan.

I don't think that arminians would consider suasion as being a violation of free will. After all the person can choose to resist the suasion. It would only be a violation if the force of the suasion were such that the person would resist. This where we get into the whole irresistable grace thing. Arminians think iot means that God exerts a suasion such tha a person CANNOT resist. What it measn though is that a person will not resist. Ability to resist is not an issue. It is simplytrue that people do not resist the Effectual Call.

If by that you mean we may havea case of post hoc reasoning, you may be right.

More troubling to me however is that this emphasis on free will is wrong. People don't go to Hell becuase they choose Hell. They go to hell becuase they are sinners. Hell is simply the consequence of that condition.

 

Do you deliberately violate your own standards or rules for your children? No! Then why do you insist that God violates his standards and rules for his creation, and that by so doing he makes himself subject to man? That shows a significant lack of understanding on your part.

 

The major problem with it is that it is a man centered doctrine. As if mans will is higher than Gods.

 

God gives to man the will that determines man's destiny. God's Work, including His work of 'belief' was completed on the Cross of Calvary, and all that remains is man's choice to believe or not believe.

Like the wedding feast, everything is already done, the feast is ready for the guests to arrive. The guests are those who choose to come and not those who are forced or by some predeterminded scheme and are thus compelled without their consent by the father of the bride to come. The wedding invitation was extended by the Bride Groom to all who will come. 'Will' being the guest's decision.

 

This may be off the subject but I thought sturgman's last post brings up an interesting point.

Generally speaking, I agree that the Arminian doctrine tends to be "man centered". However, I see Calvinism and Arminianism as two extreme views. One pushes the other deeper into it's way of thinking. As a result, one becomes biased towards the terms and thoughts of the other. "Free will" or "Choice", for example, equal "man centered" to the Calvinist while "Election" or "Sovereign Grace" equal "men are robots" to the Arminian. To me both views are dangerous because they only think in terms of the opposition. That's why the concepts of "choice" and "election" are mutually exclusive in such discussions. Are we certain this is Biblically true?

 

Yes, yes we are.

The Arminian view of us as robots happen when they try to make us hypercalvinist.

 

In other words, "choice" in the Arminian view cannot coexist with "election" in the Cavlinist view. However, the Arminian will have their own view of "election" and the Calvinist will have their own view of "choice". Both in their respective realms of thinking. Yet both see those concepets couched in terms affected by the other side's view. So one becomes bias very easily. How can one truly see clearly with a biased view?

 

Exaclty the point. The Arminian pushes towards one extremity to ensure they are removed from the extremity of the other. In doing so, the opposing side views this "push" as an extermity in and of itself.

 

Precisely! And of course you don't see the Calvinist view as creating "robots" of human beings but that's the way many Arminans see it and thus their strong rejection of it. And I assume you may reject the Arminian view because you despise the idea of a "man centered doctrine". The problem is one view does not see themselves in the light of the other. So why change? Why rethink anything?

My point is this all greatly affects one's understanding of the scriptures.

 

npetreley,

From a previous post you said...

Since Calvinism's "election" primarily focuses upon "monergistic soteriology" - borrowed term I saw used on this board - (i.e. God alone), the result is an extreme view of "choice" itself. It's goal is to strip man of any remote possibily of getting glory (a bias view from the Arminian extreme) and thus is not necessarily born from any scripture but from a particular view of what "election" is. And "election" itself is a biased concept in Calvinism because its based upon the extreme "push" of Arminianism.

I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth. This is just an observation.

 

Free will is not a rule, it is a condition which God gave to man in the creation. The writings of Moses contain most of the rules by which free will the condition is tempered. But, not all of God's rules are contained in scripture. For example this earth revolves around a burning star called Sol (no I don't know who named it), in accordance with God's rule of gravity. The moon revolves around this earth according to the same rule. Should that rule be broken for either body, good-by man!

 

Again, free will is not in scripture except as a free will offering that only the children of God can give. Show me where this is shown as a condition. You can not! There is no way you can except that you slip it in yourself. You have so much struggle over predestination, but it is all over scripture. Yet you have no trouble with free will yet it is no where in scripture!



I really don't get the line of thought you have.

 

Probably because you cannot accept more than what is in the bible. You motto like that of Nicodemus seems to be "The scriptures, many of the scriptures, and nothing but the scriptures". Well there is more as Jesus indicated to Nicodemus when he said, "you are a teacher in the land and you do not know this?" Jesus expected Nicodemus to be aware of how He, Jesus, made man. But Nicodemus response told Jesus that Nicodemus was not aware. Your response indicates that you too are unaware or that you refuse to accept the totality of man. Not that man exceeds God in any way whatever, but that God has burdened man to choose in order to have Salvation. Therefore, man must have the capability to decide, free will, what to believe for himself. I am speaking of SALVATION alone, and not the whole of the Christian life. Once one believes, is saved, one is supposed to act out that belief and do the will of God henseforth. The free will choice remains man's domain. As demonstrated by Jonah, one of God's chosen prophets, free will remains man's domain. Jonah exercised his free will and chose to flee from going to Nineveh. And God sitting on his throne smilingly saying, "there goes my faithful servant Jonah doing exactly what I ordered him to do". Jonah could have saved himself much grief by simply obeying God. Where did Johah's act come from if man has no free will?.....Oh, I get it, God made Jonah flee him so that God could demonstrate for his Glory that God has control over the affairs of man....Right!

If you refuse to believe that there is more than the scriptures, there is no truth that I post that you will believe.