What is the difference?

[npetreley]

Thanks, Ian.

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.

Actually, there is no such thing as "free will in the Arminian sense", because true Arminianism admits total depravity. Arminianism basically states that the will can do no good in and of itself without the assistance of grace. So there is no such thing as "free will" in Arminianism. But I think I understand what you mean, since most of us tend to attach the label "Arminianism" to varying "free-will" viewpoints, just as we attach the label "Calvinism" to varying "election" viewpoints.

But the potential for evil must have been a part of their good nature.

That's not the only explanation, but since we're now into speculation, I'll leave it there, too.

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.

Okay, so what you're saying (I think) is that in order for us to choose to accept (or reject) the Gospel of our own free will, we must first HAVE a free will, which would require that we are not pulled one way or another in a moral sense. The very fact that we have a sinful nature means we cannot possibly have a free will, hence there is no answer to the question: What makes the difference, given that one person chooses to accept the Gospel of his own free will, and the other rejects it of his own free will?

Obviously, I think that's an excellent response. But it still leaves the Arminian side unrepresented. They're still chanting tautologies and re-phrasings of the same question.

And so what might have been an interesting discussion can never get started, because Arminians can't answer the simplest of questions regarding their soteriology without retreating into tautologies and restatements of the same question -- if we choose to accept or reject the Gospel of our own free will, what accounts for the difference between the person who chooses of his own free will to accept the Gospel, and the person who chooses of his own free will to reject it?

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But the potential for evil must have been a part of their good nature.

That's not the only explanation, but since we're now into speculation, I'll leave it there, too. </font>[/QUOTE]Here we go!!!

This is where you both are missing the boat!

If one who was created "good" had the pontential to make an evil choice, why can't one who is evil (fallen) have the potential to make a good choice?

Adam and Eve, who were "good", were influenced by the serpant to do evil, right? Why can't God influence us, who are evil, to do good? Satan can persuade good men to choose evil, why can't God persuade evil men to choose good?

I agree it is all speculation, but Calvinists seem to rest a lot on this question.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Hi Everyone -
I'm new here, & it's nice to make your acquaintance. It seems like this is one of the longest threads on this board, and I guess it will continue into infinity until either someone gives Nick a direct answer, or hangs out the white flag!

I was just an amused onlooker until he invited the likes on myself when he said:
"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?"
Excuse me if I repeat some of what has already been said, but here goes:

No thinking person denies the reality of man's freewill, if by that term we refer to the power of choice. (In this sense, "freewill" is the necessary corollary to intellect and self-awareness. Without "freewill" we could not be defined as a person.) In the heat of debate, often someone will state or imply that Calvinism denies that man has the power of choice which he exercises free from external coercion. This is foolish and uninformed. It is this very freedom which makes Nick's original question so facinating.

So here I am, as lost as a stone. For the sake of argument, I am from a conservative Baptist family, and my identical twin brother and I have heard the Gospel proclaimed 57 different ways all of our lives. One day I see for the first time the true gravity of my sin in light of the goodness and holiness of God, and this breaks my heart. Seeing my ruin, I look unto this Jesus, who up until this point has been to me nothing more than a religious concept entwined in our family culture. But now I see for the first time that He really is the Way God has provided for such sinners as I now see myself to be. I see the reality of His love and the genuiness of His call to trust Him as my Saviour and Lord - And so I do.

My brother meanwhile, sees none of these things, and so being unconvinced, carries on carelessly in his sin. Why are we in such different positions? Now, I am supposedly Arminian, so I don't believe God influenced me in any discriminating way - He apparently would not dare to do anything that favours me over my brother, lest He incur the wrath of modern evangelicalism.
Yet I know from my own experience that Kierkegaard was entirely wrong when he said that Christian faith is "a leap in the dark." To trust something you have no evidence for is superstition, not faith. No, I repented and I believed because my soul was moved by the sight of things I had not seen before, though parents and preacher had held them before my blind eyes so often before. The thing that puzzles me is HOW these things became vivid, life-changing realities for me, whilst to this day they remain lifeless theoretical concepts to my brother.

I know that God would never favour me by healing my sin-blinded eyes so that I could see and believe whilst failing to do this for my twin. My religion, rooted as it is in human opinion and not the word of God, has taught me that this would make God "partial", unfair. No, brother Jim and I are equal in every way - Equal by birth, equal in experiance of life, and certainly, rigidly equal in whatever grace God has extended to us.

I guess there is no answer, Nick. The best I can say is that it is a mystery, perhaps even to God Himself . . . . . .

- Paul

 

[Skandelon]

Paul believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. His twin was without excuse because he clearly saw and understood the truth and refused to accept it.


Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[npetreley]

He apparently would not dare to do anything that favours me over my brother, lest He incur the wrath of modern evangelicalism.

That was a terrific line. Glad to have you around!

I am from a conservative Baptist family ... My religion, rooted as it is in human opinion and not the word of God, has taught me that this would make God "partial", unfair.

Actually, Baptists are the product of the reformation, which was strongly based in election, not free will. Only in relatively recent times has the Baptist church turned largely Arminian.

Regardless, don't write off your brother. Perhaps God plans to bring you to a point where you will come to realize that election, not salvation by free will, is true. Your brother will see the radical change in you due to the enlightenment that ensues, and God will use that as part of His plan to regenerate your brother to salvation.

For the humor impaired: That's called a "joke". Although it's worth a try, Paul.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
Paul believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. His twin was without excuse because he clearly saw and understood the truth and refused to accept it.


Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
Paul believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. His twin was without excuse because he clearly saw and understood the truth and refused to accept it.


Seems pretty simple to me.

I do not mean to be abrasive when I say that all things in life appear simple if we insist on defining them with our own preconceptions instead of dealing objectively with the facts before us.

The very reason my twin continues in unbelief is because he does NOT clearly see and understand the truth. I know this is true, because I also was once in his lost condition. Like Jim, I had heard the truth, having had it was poured into my ear since infancy, and like him, I was able to repeat the facts of the Gospel to anyone who cared to examine my religious knowledge. Yet I could neither see nor understand the reality of my own wretched sinfulness, nor could I see with my soul the wonder of Christ. The things of the Spirit of God were foolishness to me, as they remain foolishness to Jim. But praise God, for reasons which I as an Arminian do not understand, I now have sight to see the startling reality of those same things which to Jim remain nothing more than dry religious propositions.

Poor Jim - do not ask him to be a hypocrite, and walk an aisle or sign a card so the preacher can declare him saved. Do not ask him to say he believes things which are not real to him, even though he knows as many facts about them as you or me. Nor should you encourage Jim to resent God for holding him responsible for something he cannot do; rather weep over the blinding, crippling reality of sin that holds him fast in a grip only God can break.

Actually, it is simple, isn't it? Tragically, terrifyingly simple.

- Paul

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
The very reason my twin continues in unbelief is because he does NOT clearly see and understand the truth.

Oh, but HE does clearly see and understand the divine qualities and eternal nature of God, he just refuses to acknowledge Him as such. Just as you once did. You alway knew God, you just rebelled against him and ignored him, just as your brother is doing now.

He knows and that is why he will be without any excuses when he stands before God on judgement day.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
You alway knew God, you just rebelled against him and ignored him, just as your brother is doing now.

Brother, (Sister?) I fear you are confusing Knowing ABOUT God with Knowing God. I do not deny that we are accountable for the information we have, yet factual data alone is not sufficient grounds for saving faith.

I notice you are from Oklahoma, and although I have heard various things about that place, I have never seen it for myself, and therefore cannot say that I know it. The same is true with spiritual things. God's word gives abundant evidence that He must open our eyes that we may see and thus believe. Did Nicodemus know God as he came to Christ by night? No, though being a Pharisee, he certainly knew a lot about Him. But rather than tell Nicodemus to "trust the God he already knew", Jesus confronts this learned man with the reality of his own inability: "Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." He then goes on to drive this home in a most forceful manner. How anyone could read the first 10 verses of Jn.3, and come away thinking regeneration is some sort of reward for believing, rather than the ground of our believing, I do not know. God's word continually restates the fact that we are born into God's family "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." However, I fear that if God were to add another 10,000 such texts, it would not be enough to convince those who would rather deny their own name than deny the traditions of their man-made theology.

My brilliant young namesake who learned about God at the feet of the great Gamaliel certainly knew as much as any unregenerate man could about God. Yet it took a sovereign act of God on the road to Damascus before he felt himself to be the chief of sinners (I Tim.1:15). Only after this did he abandon his own righteousness, that he might have that righteousness which is of God (Phil.3:4-9). Only after this could he say, "I KNOW whom I have believed" (II Tim.1:12).

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this debate is the fact that everything I read in God's word concerning the sovereignty of God's grace, I see reflected in my own experience. It therefore mystifies me how anyone who knows what it is to be translated into the kingdom of His dear Son could ever feel that they were the author and finisher of their own faith.

I was in fact one of those who had heard the Gospel since my infancy, but I testify that I did not trust Christ because I was willing to take a gamble that what I had been told was true, and "decide to get saved." Rather, there came a time when, for no obvious reason, some 38 years ago I SAW that it was true. I SAW, (& still see) my own sin in a way that I had not seen it before, and turned away from it, with a yearning to be clean, and I SAW that Christ is who He says He is in all His loveliness, and I cleaved to Him as my Lord and Saviour. As I read Paul speaking about the wonder of God's grace in saving him, his words speak of my experience also. Do they not speak of yours too? And if they do, shall we not rejoice together in Him who brought us out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake our bands in sunder, instead of crediting our courrupt flesh with abilities it simply did not have? (Rom.8:7-10)

- Paul


He knows and that is why he will be without any excuses when he stands before God on judgement day.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
Brother, (Sister?) I fear you are confusing Knowing ABOUT God with Knowing God. I do not deny that we are accountable for the information we have, yet factual data alone is not sufficient grounds for saving faith.

I'm only stating what scripture teach in Romans 1 about those who KNEW God but REFUSED to acknowledge him as God. More than that, they CLEARLY SAW and UNDERSTOOD his eternal qualities and divine attributes.

Yes, there can be a distinction in know about someone and actually knowing them which typically has to do with the presense of the one you know. I can tell you about my dad but unless you meet him you only know about him. With God we do not really KNOW him until we are in his presence. Right now we look through a cloudy glass, but one day we will see it all. The whole point of Romans 1 was that the people had all that was needed for them to acknowledge God as their God but they refused and therefore are without excuse.

God's word continually restates the fact that we are born into God's family "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." However, I fear that if God were to add another 10,000 such texts, it would not be enough to convince those who would rather deny their own name than deny the traditions of their man-made theology.

John 1:13 is followed by verse 12 which teaches that we must believe before we can even have the right to be born as God's children. Faith in the gospel truth is the means to new birth.

My brilliant young namesake who learned about God at the feet of the great Gamaliel certainly knew as much as any unregenerate man could about God. Yet it took a sovereign act of God on the road to Damascus before he felt himself to be the chief of sinners (I Tim.1:15). Only after this did he abandon his own righteousness, that he might have that righteousness which is of God (Phil.3:4-9). Only after this could he say, "I KNOW whom I have believed" (II Tim.1:12).

I agree that it took a sovereign act of God to convert Paul because of the level of his hardened nature. I do not deny that God miraclously intervienes in the lives of some to accomplish his ultimate purposes in this world.

God effectually called Jonah to go to Ninevah too, but that doesn't prove that the people in Ninevah were effectually called to respond. His message must be preserved and it is not left up to human will, He sovereignly intervienes to protect and prosper it.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this debate is the fact that everything I read in God's word concerning the sovereignty of God's grace, I see reflected in my own experience. It therefore mystifies me how anyone who knows what it is to be translated into the kingdom of His dear Son could ever feel that they were the author and finisher of their own faith.

No one here believe that we authored or perfected the Christian faith. This is a stawman accusation.

As I read Paul speaking about the wonder of God's grace in saving him, his words speak of my experience also. Do they not speak of yours too?

Somewhat different. He was effectually called to apostleship. He was set apart from birth, taught from above and thus uniquely inspired with a spiritual authority that is unlike mine or yours. Be careful not to ascribe attributes of apostlolic authority to yourself, such as being "set apart from birth" and "being taught from above." I believed in Christ through their message, wrought in them by the Holy Spirit.

instead of crediting our courrupt flesh with abilities it simply did not have? (Rom.8:7-10)

Again this is a strawman. We don't credit flesh with ability it does not have. Romans 8 says nothing about men's inability to respond in faith to the Holy Spirit wrought message of the cross.

Your brother.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Calvinists always "give the credit" for the infinite gift of salvation to the one who is enabled to accept it - rather than the one who provides it.

Arminians do not.

Calvinists always "assume that the only reason that we choose something is that someone/something made us do it (inclined us, predisposed us, genetically programmed us) "

Arminians do not.

Free Will “by definition” states that you may CHOOSE any option no matter WHAT your genetics, or environment, or inclinations prior to that Gospel appeal, and drawing.

Calvinist will respond - "yes but we must also provide ANOTHER answer BESIDES free will for that result".

Because "of course" Calvinism does NOT accept Free will - and needs ANOTHER solution. Something on the order of "God made me choose it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by Skandelon:


John 1:13 is followed by verse 12 which teaches that we must believe before we can even have the right to be born as God's children. Faith in the gospel truth is the means to new birth.

[/QB]

Dear Skandelon
I can only assume that you typed this by mistake, yet ironically this mistake is exactly the inversion of scripture of which Arminianism is guilty. Beyond any dispute Jn.1:13 says that those who are born into God's family are born, not by the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but by the will of God.

John says (v.12) that in contrast to those in verse 11 who rejected Christ, there were nevertheless some who received Him and believed on His name, and to them were given, literally "the authorization" (IE: to a new title and status as the children of God). To interpret this chronologically to mean "we must believe before we can even have the right to be born as God's children" is to say more than John is saying. He merely pointing out that these people became part of God's family by faith. Verse 13 stands guard lest we make the mistake of thinking that our birth into this faith relationship was in any sense a human work.

There are many logical arguments that could be brought to bear concerning the nature of belief and the necessary conditions for it. But ultimately brother, what matters is "What saith the scripture?" I would again urge a serious and open-minded study of Christ's discourse with Nicodemus (Jn.3:1-10) if you are sincere in dealing with this question.

- Paul

 

[BobRyan]

In John 3 we see the drawing of all mankind - being done via the Holy Spirit long before a person chooses salvation.

No question about it -- God must supernaturally ENABLE the choice that TD disables.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In John 3 we see the drawing of all mankind - being done via the Holy Spirit long before a person chooses salvation.

No question about it -- God must supernaturally ENABLE the choice that TD disables.

Hi Bob -
Two points:
1) Jn.12:32 (from which I assume you get the idea of God drawing all of humanity to Himself) refers to all men without distinction, not all men without exception. (IE: He draws men from every nation, kindred tribe & tongue.) This can be demonstrated from the context in which Jesus says these words, as well as from the reality that millions have lived and died without ever hearing the Gospel.

2) In any case, Christ says nothing to Nicodemus about the process of God drawing the sinner to Himself, but deals with necessity for spiritual birth (V.3), the One who is the cause of that birth (v.5-6), and the fact that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in this work (v.8)

Just as the cause of man's physical birth is outside of himself, so is the cause of his spiritual birth.

- Paul

 

[BobRyan]

Christ says that He draws ALL mankind to HIMSELF.

Paul says that ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.


John says "HE is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the Whole World"

I think it is clear.

However as your post points out - Calvinism gets into the business of trying to get "all" not really mean "all" and "World does not mean world" and "Whole World" is not really whole world.. etc.

Arminians don't need to play those games. We can just take the text as it reads.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[npetreley]

Christ says that He draws ALL mankind to HIMSELF.

Jesus said he would draw ALL to Himself. You want to put the word "mankind" in there, but it's not there. Others want to put the word "peoples" in there, but it's not there. The fact is, this verse is not explicit the way either side wants it to be.

 

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
Arminians don't need to play those games. We can just take the text as it reads.

You mean you believe everyone will be saved? 1 Cor.15: 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Ian, it says "IN CHRIST" which qualifies the "all" in this verse.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
Ian, it says "IN CHRIST" which qualifies the "all" in this verse.

OK, try these then, Rom.5: 18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
and
1 John 2: 20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

Still happy that 'all' means all without exception? Omniscience and universalism?

In Him

Ian

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
and
1 John 2: 20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

Still happy that 'all' means all without exception? Omniscience and universalism?

In Him

Ian

I still like my example, too -- when Paul says "I endure all things for the sake of the elect", he obviously means ALL things, including bamboo shoots under his finger nails, watching Pauly Shore movies, etc...