What is the difference?

[BobRyan]

Yes you "say" you want to start with the Arminian position that nothing MAKES them choose one way or the other - - but then you ask "So what MADE them choose one way or the other? AND don't say NOTHING MADE them choose one way or the other as your answer".

But of course you use "inclined" and "predisposed" instead of "MADE", and something ABOUT THE PERSON (the way they were MADE?).

Originally posted by npetreley:

Obviously, you were MADE in such a way that you are incapable of answering a very simple question.

Actually you bring up a good point. If Calvinism were actually true - then God has "MADE" me do careful Bible study and then post here - to expose the flaws of Calvinism. I have no "choice" in the matter.

NP
Let me remind you, as you answer in a mockery of the Calvinist's answer, that YOU are the person who suggested that the difference is like one of wax vs. clay -- which implies that the difference boils down to how they are MADE.

Finally - you make one objective point that could "possibly" be agreed upon using critical thinking. I agree 100% - the example I gave left the door wide open to speculation that it is the one that MADE someone WAX vs CLAY who is to blame. (you know - the Calvinist model)... (In a discussion about the way some are hardened vs softened by Grace).

But My point was not to claim that they are hardened NOT by a different purpose of God in sending Grace but RATHER in CHOOSING to reject it they MAKE THEMSELVES respond like clay and those who CHOOSE to accept are then receiving the consequence like wax melting.

I gave another example - that of one who CHOOSES to FALL on the ROCK vs the one who CHOOSES to resist with the consequence that rock CRUSHED them.

NP
I did not suggest any such thing -- YOU DID -- and I am specifically asking for an answer that is unlike the very analogy you used.

No. You simply use "inclined" and "Disposed" as metaphores for "MADE" because you can't get out of the Calvinist model that people only do what they are MADE (inclined) to do, they only do what they are MADE (disposed) to do.

IT is pretty obvious that it is simply Calvinism "Again" inserted into your question.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

NP
Given that they are not MADE to choose differently, I want to know WHY one chooses to accept the Gospel, and another chooses to reject it.

And I HAVE SHOWN - that this is the SAME question in the case of the 1/3 vs 2/3 Angels where the first CHOOSES to rebel and the second CHOOSE to remain faithful.

I have SHOWN that you can not simply appeal to the Calvinist ploy "because they were MADE to be INCLINED to fail". Since we all agree they were the SAME - they were all sinless and created without flaw.

In the same way - a fallen group - ALL sinFUL but all DRAWN by God so that they TOO can CHOOSE - have the SAME result which is they do not ALL choose the SAME thing.

Now I know this point is "supposed" to appear confusing and too complicated for a Calvinist to see and respond to... but I really think you can do it if you halfway try.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

NP You have failed to explain WHY one person's heart becomes like wax, and another person's heart becomes like clay.

I claim that the RESULT of hardening like Clay in the sun or SOFTENING like wax in the sun is determined by the CHOICE of the individual when the "light shines in darkness" And they either choose to come to the light or reject it.

You ask WHY one would come - they would come because THIS IS LIFE. Ask WHY 2/3 would remain faithful - they would remain faithFUL because God is love, and wise, and allpowerful.

You ask WHY someone would choose SELF and REBELLION and not DYING to self? (As if that is a confusing thought why anyone might make that choice).

But when confronted with the answer that God GIVES both groups the ability to freely choose EITHER path - you reject it saying "NO but rather each group is either DISPOSED or INCLINED to a certain thing and THAT is WHY they choose as they do".

Calvinism "again".

So in your attempt "Claim" to evaluate the Arminian position critically and objectively - the best that you muster is "injecting Calvinism into an Arminian scenario" and then asking Arminians to untangle your Calvinism-in-Arminian proposal.

And here you admit that your own use of INCLINED and preDISPOSED is just another cloak for "calvinism's MADE"

NP said
The only good point you made was that the word "predisposed" suggests how we're made.

NP
Okay, so let's eliminate the use of the word "predisposed". "Predisposed" was simply ONE of the many reasons in my example that I cited to explain why I might choose to eat pizza of my own free will. You don't have to choose "predisposed" as part of your answer. You never had to use that as part of your answer. All I'm asking is for AN ANSWER. Any answer to the question.

Ok so we rule out the Calvinist idea that 1/3 of the angels were "INCLINED to fail" or that they were "DISPOSED to failure", and certainly not GENETICALLY programmed to choose failure more than the 2/3 group.

And your question is WHY would they choose failure though not INCLINED to it and not predisposed to it (and oh by the way "FREE WILL" is NOT supposed to be "The answer" since BOTH the 1/3 and the 2/3 groups have FREE WILL - right?)

Well here is a "hint" the "answer" is the SAME for those two groups as it is for the TWO groups on earth (the lost vs the saved). AT the start BOTH sets of groups are EQUAL to each other. NONE of those in the failing groups have environmental factors or genetics "MAKING" them different from the succeeding group. But they DO all have Free Will as you readily admit.

(Hmmm. Now let me think...if I were God... and I were making free will... then it would work like...)

That's it!! Calvinists are not God!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

(Hmmm. Now let me think...if I were God... and I were making free will... then it would work like...)
That's it!! Calvinists are not God!

Bob, I'm really starting to like you!

This discussion made me think of Adam in the garden where it says, "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil... Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."

Calvinists would have us believe that man can only know and choose that which is evil because of our fallen nature, but I think it is clear that fallen men can know both good and evil and they can choose good. How can I be so sure? Look what the verse goes on to say, "And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken."

God knew that the man could have chosen good and could have taken from the tree of life, so he sent him out of the garden. We know from this passage that the fallen Adam could know both good and evil and that Adam could choose both good and evil. In fact, to prevent him from choosing to eat from the tree of life God banished him from the garden.

Its interesting to me that God often uses human means to prevent or persuade men to make certain choices. Intesting. Its seems that if he were causing all our choices by the way he MADE us that he wouldn't need to resort to using such means.

Keep holding your ground Bob! The light will turn on in Nick's head eventually.

 

[npetreley]

Ok so we rule out the Calvinist idea that 1/3 of the angels were "INCLINED to fail" or that they were "DISPOSED to failure", and certainly not GENETICALLY programmed to choose failure more than the 2/3 group.

And your question is WHY would they choose failure though not INCLINED to it and not predisposed to it (and oh by the way "FREE WILL" is NOT supposed to be "The answer" since BOTH the 1/3 and the 2/3 groups have FREE WILL - right?)

The most fascinating thing about this interchange is that no matter what I say, no matter how plainly I say it, no matter how much I grant you your own presumptions, you REFUSE to answer the question.

You are misrepresenting what it means to be inclined. You are defining it as though it MUST mean predisposed, as if they were inclined from creation or from birth. I have clearly explained situations where one can BECOME inclined during life experiences, not having been created that way or predisposed to be that way. Yet you STILL claim that I am equating the two in order to evade the question.

I can't make it any plainer than I've already made it.

Obviously, Arminians cannot possibly answer this very simple question. Can I have some speculation from Calvinists, then? Given that free will is true, and that one chooses to accept or reject the Gospel of one's own free will, how do you account for the difference? What inclines what person to choose to accept the Gospel, and another to reject it?

I've already stated the rules -- no tautologies (one chooses one or the other because one is able to choose one or the other), or restating the question in other terms (one chooses to accept it because one is inclined to do so, etc.)

I know what Calvinists believe, so I'm not asking you Calvinists to refute the premise. I'm just asking that, if you could just imagine for a moment that free will choice in salvation is true, can you at least speculate on what would lead one person to choose to accept the Gospel and another to reject it?

C'mon Calvinists, show some backbone. The Arminians are obviously terrified of this question.

 

[Marcia]

Given that free will is true, and that one chooses to accept or reject the Gospel of one's own free will, how do you account for the difference? What inclines what person to choose to accept the Gospel, and another to reject it?

I think the problem is with the question.

Isn't there an assumption built into the question when you say "what inclines one person to choose" or reject the Gospel? Why do you assume something inclines someone to do this? What inclined Adam and Eve to disobey God? It seems plain from the text that it was their desire to believe the serpent and to have what they thought the fruit offered.

And isn't asking what "inclines" someone to choose something similar to asking what "makes" a person choose something? It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I think the problem is with the question.

Isn't there an assumption built into the question when you say "what inclines one person to choose" or reject the Gospel? Why do you assume something inclines someone to do this? What inclined Adam and Eve to disobey God? It seems plain from the text that it was their desire to believe the serpent and to have what they thought the fruit offered.

And isn't asking what "inclines" someone to choose something similar to asking what "makes" a person choose something? It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

No, the way I've used the terms aren't at all the same. To "make" someone do something implies a "maker" - some external person, action or force that is applied with the explicit intention to manipulate the person into doing something.

When someone is "inclined" to so something, there are a plethora of reasons WHY that person might be inclined to do something. I am sleepy, so I am inclined to go to sleep. Whether or not I DECIDE to go to bed right now depends on whether I"m more inclined to give in to my sleepiness or whether I"m more inclined to do some unfinished chores. But whichever wins, it's still an inclination.

In fact, it is a given that whenever you choose something -- ANYTHING -- you do so because you are so inclined. You don't choose to eat Fruit Loops in the morning unless you are inclined to do so. Now that FINAL inclination may be very complex -- you may weigh how much sugar there is in Fruit Loops may be with how good they taste to you, and the "good taste" wins. Then you find out there isn't enough milk in the refrigerator to make the Fruit Loops taste good, so you are more inclined to choose something else.

These specific inclinations may be the result of from a mixture of genetic predispositions, random chance, your emotional state at the time, and so on.

Now -- YOU don't have to explain the difference in terms of inclination, even if I believe that inclination is a natural consequence of the way we make decisions. If you don't like that idea, then YOU TELL ME how it works.

So, I ask again -- if one chooses to accept the Gospel, and another person chooses to reject the Gospel, what accounts for the difference between the two. Was it completely random chance? Cosmic radiation hit different brain cells in the two different people? Was it upbringing? Was it the quality of how the Gospel was preached? Surely somebody out there has one or more theories?

Honestly, what's the matter with you Arminians that you can base your soteriology on free will, but you don't even have the guts to speculate on why one chooses of his own free will this, and another chooses of his own free will that?

 

[Skandelon]

You are exactly right Marcia, which is what Bob has been attempting to get through Nick's head for the last 10 posts. He is ignoring me because I'm use "deceptive debate tactics" that obviously confuse and frustrate him so he doesn't play with me anymore

But I must say that just makes it all the more fun for me.

Nick, just can't get the idea through his head that man could be FREE and by that very defination not be INCLINED or MADE or PREDISPOSED or DESIGNED to choose one thing over another. He just can't get it!

Oh, I thought of something that might help him (if he bothers to read my posts, if not maybe you can tell him for me

)

What inclined God to chose you Nick and not Hitler? Hmmm. Nothing else but God's will??? Oh, there must be something. Was God more inclined toward you? Was he predisposed to guys named Nick and not guys named Hilter? What MADE God choose you?

No answer except.....God. Right? Why? Because you understand something about God. HE IS FREE TO MAKE HIS OWN CHOICE BASED UPON THE GOOD PLEASURE OF HIS OWN FREE WILL.

Ahaaa. There you go. That same God chose to create beings in his image who, through the fall, became knowledgable of both good and evil. These creatures were given the ability to think, reason and choose for themselves in much the same way God does. And God holds them accoutable for those choices. Can God do that without compromising his own sovereignty? All things are possible with God. So, choices we make are made out of our wills and may not have any other reason than because that is what we chose.

Nick, I know you don't like that and I know you will NOT accept it, because that is the kind of Calvinist you are, but that doesn't stop it from being what it is, TRUE.

Learn to deal with it.

 

[BobRyan]

Skandelon said --
What inclined God to chose you Nick and not Hitler? Hmmm. Nothing else but God's will??? Oh, there must be something. Was God more inclined toward you? Was he predisposed to guys named Nick and not guys named Hilter? What MADE God choose you?

This is a good point Skandelon.

In Calvinism there is nothing about the inclination, predisposition, or genetics of one sinner vs another that "makes God choose" for one and against the other. Calvinism claims they are all pretty much the same - depraved and deserving of Hell.

In the same way Calvinism claims that there is nothing about God that "MAKES HIM" predisposed, or inclined or programmed or genetically determined to choose for sinner-A vs sinner-B.

Apparently they think God has "FREE WILL" and that this alone accounts for His "choice".

But in the case of mankind - the choice it not between two EQUALS - but between ultimate GOOD vs ultimate EVIL. So when mankind is given "FREE WILL" you would "expect" him to be "less arbitrary" and you would expect Calvinists to be less inclined to argue "Free Will does not account for the CHOICE not always being the SAME robotic choice every time".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Isn't there an assumption built into the question when you say "what inclines one person to choose" or reject the Gospel?

Indeed you are correct. It is a supposedly Arminian scenario where Calvinism is the assumed context. It is a hybrid Calvinism-Arminian scenario that no Arminian suggests - and that no Calvinist believes in.

But that is about as "objective" as I have seen for Calvinists evaluating an Arminian concept.

Marcia said --
Why do you assume something inclines someone to do this? What inclined Adam and Eve to disobey God?

Correct again.

Adam and Eve were not "genetically programmed for failure" rather they were sinless, perfect and in perfect harmony with their maker from the 6th evening-and-morning of creation week on.

Marcia said --
And isn't asking what "inclines" someone to choose something similar to asking what "makes" a person choose something? It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

(A good quote of Hank, Marcia).

You are correct - this is just another way to says "what MAKES them choose as they do".

For example Eric already admits that in his model "people only choose as they are inclined to choose" which is Calvinism's "people only choose as they are MADE to choose".

He is not able to step away from Calvinism long enough to evaluate an Arminian concept.

In the Arminian system - "by definition" Free Will results in the ability and even the "outcome" of varying choices given the SAME set of input variables UNTIL you max out on data for the compelling argument.

For example - the "Data" on poking a stick in your eye 'is in'. So it is not surprising that we get 100% agreement that people do not want to poke a stick in their eye.

But when the data is not all compiled and so there is a choice between not wanting to die to self - vs -- the choice for eternal life, FREE WILL accounts for the different reactions to the Gospel invitation of "life eternal".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so we rule out the Calvinist idea that 1/3 of the angels were "INCLINED to fail" or that they were "DISPOSED to failure", and certainly not GENETICALLY programmed to choose failure more than the 2/3 group.

And your question is WHY would they choose failure though not INCLINED to it and not predisposed to it (and oh by the way "FREE WILL" is NOT supposed to be "The answer" since BOTH the 1/3 and the 2/3 groups have FREE WILL - right?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
The most fascinating thing about this interchange is that no matter what I say, no matter how plainly I say it, no matter how much I grant you your own presumptions, you REFUSE to answer the question.

You are misrepresenting what it means to be inclined. You are defining it as though it MUST mean predisposed, as if they were inclined from creation or from birth. I have clearly explained situations where one can BECOME inclined during life experiences, not having been created that way or predisposed to be that way. Yet you STILL claim that I am equating the two in order to evade the question.

Amazing!

I give the proof that your premise is flawed - and you even QUOTE that proof and then in your response proceed to ignore the glaring contradiction to your own statement.

The 1/3 that chose to fail -- were not "inclined to fail". I doubt that even in you could make that case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

(Hmmm. Now let me think...if I were God... and I were making free will... then it would work like...)
That's it!! Calvinists are not God!

Originally posted by Skandelon:

Bob, I'm really starting to like you!

Thanks Skandelon - I have to admit - I had a bit of a laugh there too.

But the point is serious - Calvinism objects to the fact that men don't fully understand the mind of God and so can not fully understand how it is that God can know all things future without FORCING people to do what He wants so that He "can" know the future.

Their God is too small.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[npetreley]

I give the proof that your premise is flawed

Here is the premise (quoted from the original post):

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the difference between a saved person and an unsaved person is that the saved person decided of his/her own free will to accept/believe/trust the Gospel.

I agree 100% that this premise is flawed. People do not decide of their own free will to accept/believe/trust the Gospel. But assuming this premise weren't flawed, how do you account for the difference? Why does one choose to accept the Gospel and another to reject it?

Don't bother - you Arminians are so obviously threatened by the question you can't possibly address it head-on.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree 100% that this premise is flawed. People do not decide of their own free will to accept/believe/trust the Gospel. But assuming this premise weren't flawed, how do you account for the difference? Why does one choose to accept the Gospel and another to reject it?

Nick, if the premise weren't flawed their wouldn't be any difference except for the will of the person making the choice.

Now, I will say, as I have before, that the will is affected by external influences. Eve was influenced by the serpant. The word influences men. So does the world. The signs and wonders performed by God can affect the will as revealed in Tyre and Sidon and the other cities mentioned as being able to be influenced. But I don't believe scripture ever teaches some men are more inclined or predisposed to choose one thing over the other, otherwise the premise wouldn't be true.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by npetreley:

I agree 100% that this premise is flawed. People do not decide of their own free will to accept/believe/trust the Gospel. But assuming this premise weren't flawed, how do you account for the difference? Why does one choose to accept the Gospel and another to reject it?

Don't bother - you Arminians are so obviously threatened by the question you can't possibly address it head-on.

I don't see anyone acting threatened by the question. I think you just don't like the answers.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by npetreley:

When someone is "inclined" to so something, there are a plethora of reasons WHY that person might be inclined to do something. I am sleepy, so I am inclined to go to sleep. Whether or not I DECIDE to go to bed right now depends on whether I"m more inclined to give in to my sleepiness or whether I"m more inclined to do some unfinished chores. But whichever wins, it's still an inclination.

In fact, it is a given that whenever you choose something -- ANYTHING -- you do so because you are so inclined. You don't choose to eat Fruit Loops in the morning unless you are inclined to do so. Now that FINAL inclination may be very complex -- you may weigh how much sugar there is in Fruit Loops may be with how good they taste to you, and the "good taste" wins. Then you find out there isn't enough milk in the refrigerator to make the Fruit Loops taste good, so you are more inclined to choose something else.

You are assuming we make choices from inclinations. If I am sleepy but decide to stay up and read it may have nothing to do with inclinations. I want to read and I like reading, so I decide to stay awake to read. I want to eat Fruit Loops (or whatever) because I like them, so I do. If there is not enough milk and I don't eat the cereal, it's not because I'm inclined to choose something else, but I have to eat something else because there is not enough milk and my choices have been limited.

You may word it differently and say that I am inclined to choose to stay up and read because I am inclined to do so by my love of reading, but that is really the same thing as saying I am just choosing to read because I like reading.

Certainly our choices are influenced by many factors, but we still have the ability to make a choice and are accountable for it.

And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Josh 24.15

And the Lord spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, “Go and say to David, ‘Thus says the Lord, Three things I offer you; choose one of them, that I may do it to you.’” 1 Chron 21.9-10

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. Phil 1.21-22

 

[Skandelon]

Marcia,

You make some great points. Human free will is able to choose opposite its "inclinations" and its "influences," which only makes since when the glaring scriptures are always giving us warnings about what not to be influenced by. That ability to go against its "instincts" and its "influences" are what make men's will free. The word free means free. If you remove that from men then you make whatever it is that does MAKE them choose the way they do not only responsible for the right choices but for their wrong ones as well thus taking away their responsiblity. If you try to say God must be in control of their choice to be saved in order to remain sovereign then you must maintain that God causes their choice to sin as well. It is not consistant to say that sovereignty must maintain total control but then say that men are in control when it come to their choice to sin.

 

[Skandelon]

Why did Thomas believe?

Because he saw and touched Jesus himself. Blessed are they who don't see and still believe.

God is willing to bless men who have faith. They choose to believe eventhough they don't see. Thomas could have chosen to do that but HE stubbornly refused to do so until he saw Christ for himself. Christ could have left Thomas in unbelief and he would have been condemned for his stubborn rejection to have faith. People who do that have no gaurentee that God is going to show them anything. Like Tyre and Sidon they are not able to see and they choose to reject. According to Christ had they seen signs and wonders they would have believed but God is not obligated to show us anything, he desires those with FAITH, not those who believe through sight. That is his requirement and he is God, He can ask for whatever He wants.

 

[npetreley]

If I am sleepy but decide to stay up and read it may have nothing to do with inclinations. I want to read and I like reading, so I decide to stay awake to read.

It has everything to do with inclinations. In this case, you are MORE inclined to read than you are to sleep.

If you don't like the word "inclination", then choose another one, but it all amounts to the same thing. Call them desires, if you want. You desire to sleep, you desire to read, and your desire to read is stronger than the one to sleep -- so it wins, and that's what you decide to do.

The point is, you can probably identify WHY you desire to sleep and WHY you like to read. You may even be able to identify WHY you would rather read than sleep on a given night, and therefore WHY you decided to stay up and read.

So why can't you at least speculate on WHY you would "decide" to accept the Gospel, and WHY another would "decide" to reject it?

It's about as simple a question as one could imagine - and yet you free will advocates have been evading it for 6 pages now.

 

[Ian Major]

npetreley said
I know what Calvinists believe, so I'm not asking you Calvinists to refute the premise. I'm just asking that, if you could just imagine for a moment that free will choice in salvation is true, can you at least speculate on what would lead one person to choose to accept the Gospel and another to reject it?
and
C'mon Calvinists, show some backbone. The Arminians are obviously terrified of this question.

I hesitate to enter the fray, as my wife is already pointing out I have a lot of commitments coming up - but I really appreciate your efforts to enlighten our brethren. So here goes:

A real free-will choice in the Arminian sense must be the same as that of the pre-Fall angels and Adam/Eve. Both were created 'good' - no sin within. No evil nature to affect their choices.

But the potential for evil must have been a part of their good nature. They were good, but were capable of evil. This is pure speculation, and I won't take it any further.

Is that where man is when the gospel comes to him? Definitely NOT. Under conviction we wrestle with the competing effects of conscience stirred by the Spirit and our evil heart. The battle is always lost, until the Lord removes our evil heart and gives us a new heart. We then respond in love to Him. We can do no other. A good heart MUST obey the gospel. A bad heart MUST NOT obey the gospel.

On regeneration, we become unable to reject or forsake the gospel. We will never be plucked from His hand. Whatever happened to the unfallen angels, they too can now never fall.

The Scripture shows us that free-will died with Adam. Praise God, it will never be part of our nature again - no more Falls, only endless fellowship with God and the holy angels.

For the free-will scenario of Arminianism to stand, God would have to make us as sinless as the pre-Fall angels and Adam/Eve. THEN we could make a choice not determined by our natures. We would all stand in Adam's shoes again.

In Christ

Ian