Such is the nature of election. If God had wanted to elect everyone, He would have. We agree that He didn't elect everyone. I say, therefore, God could not have wanted all men to be saved, or else He is a weak God. In a similar way, if God allows men to snatch themselves out of His hand, then God wasn't strong enough to accomplish what He wanted in terms of the most important thing to humans. It seems that your side believes that to God, it is much more important that man be free to kill himself than it is for His children to be saved.
In the way you seem to be speaking of it, the extra factor (man's free will) is actually the deciding factor in salvation. Man decides his own destiny using his free will. Our disagreement is that I do not believe man has "enough" goodness on his own to make the right decision, you apparently do. You can say that God gives all the help you want, but under your theology, man still makes the final decision. Free will, in the way you are using the term, cannot be free if God controls.
[On why Christ would go to the cross if it was unnecessary:] For love. God wasn't required to do any such thing as die. He could have merely came down, waved His hand, and said "all men are forgiven". WHY does God "have" to die?? Who is forcing God to die on the cross but love?
That is my point, God COULD have waived His hand IF it would have worked, but He didn't. How in the world does it show love to us for Him to die if it wasn't necessary? And the quote you must be thinking of does not apply. If I said to my wife "I love you honey, I'm doing this for you", and then jumped off a building, would that really be showing love for my wife? That is what you seem to be asking me to believe Jesus did. If Jesus didn't HAVE to die to save us, then He committed blind suicide. I conclude that Christ gave His life FOR us because it was the only way.
He didn't give us Commandments for the express purpose of their being broken and disobeyed!
Well. maybe not the expressed purpose, but I would still say it was one purpose of them. I'll borrow one of your own types of arguments and ask why would God give a set of Commandments He knew no one could keep to His standards? A major reason must have been to show us this was not the way to heaven.
It is NOT God's "Will" that sin exists - He makes goodness come from it, but it is illogical that God desires sin to exist for its own sake. It is a side effect of man's free will.
No one said God wills that sin exist for its own sake or for no reason, but since there is a reason, I still say God wills it. It is immaterial if it is categorized as a side effect of men or not, it exists, God is in full control, so He willed it.
To believe that God releases control is to place God into time, awaiting humans to make decisions, or forcing them to make the decisions He wants them to make!
But you have already said that God uses His foreknowledge of man's decisions to make some of His decisions. That is releasing control. If God sees that a man will choose 'A', then God will choose 'B'. If God really was in control, He would choose 'B' independently and then make sure that 'A' would make the corresponding "choice".
FK: "Calvinists believe that man has free will."
That's rhetoric. A Calvinist does not believe in freedom of choice. An unregenerated man can ONLY choose evil, while the regenerated man can ONLY choose good, according to Harley. This is not free will, this is a bound will.
From Harley's description and my agreement, it is clear that we see the concept of free will very differently from you. That is true. However, while we would say that an unregenerated man cannot choose good in God's eyes, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE on our side has ever said that a regenerated man can only choose good. A nickel says that Harley and I together can put up two good examples why that is impossible. :)
But look at our differences on the issue of freedom of choice. We would say that on the side of "good" choices, that man does not have the capability to make them independently of God. Your side disagrees, and says that man IS "good" enough to make good choices, with help BUT STILL, independently of God (wounded vs. total depravity). Where is each side placing its faith concerning salvation? In the case of "bad" choices, I would imagine that both sides are very close.
But God's foreknowledge of our actions doesn't make God dependent on man - He is able to plan accordingly, simultaneously, to enable man to make what is a free will choice for him, done the way God desires.
I don't see how that can be. The second you say "plan accordingly", whether outside of time or not, that means God is dependent because God's plan would have been different BUT FOR man's decisions. The only way out would be to say that God's plan is not implemented in full because man's decisions necessarily deviate from what God would have planned had He been in control. (You said that God only gives us the tools to do what He wants, but of course, that doesn't always work out, so therefore the plan God would have made without man's input is thwarted.)
It was their [fallen angels] free will choice to NOT follow God - which God foresaw but not desire or ordain. IF God created an evil being, then God IS the author of evil, correct?
God created an angel, knowing full well this angel would later become satan. If God did not desire or ordain this, then why did He do it? The millisecond after satan became satan, God could have crushed him like a bug, but He didn't. Why not, if He did not desire or ordain satan's existence? To answer your question, it depends on what you mean by "evil being". If you mean a being equivalent to satan in his present state, then I would agree. However, if evil is the absence of God, then all of us are born in that state, and God creates all of us, so ...
It is His will that evil exists, despite that He did not create it or desires its existence. God is pure holiness. He does not desire the existence of evil - accept in that it enable man to retain free will.
Jo Kus from above - "It is NOT God's "Will" that sin exists ..." Well, does God desire the existence of evil or not? Your view here is rather encompassing. :) Another issue I see cropping up is that we see the concept of "ordaining" differently. I would say that all that God wills, He ordains. Do you disagree?
TBC ...
If God had wanted to elect everyone, He would have.
UNLESS God also has another will that logically would make BOTH "desires" impossible to fulfill completely! "Can God make a rock that He cannot pick up"? Can God save all men if all men are to have free will? In the latter question, we must hold BOTH as true, despite our inability to completely solve this mystery. Refusing one side of the equation is an attempt to rationalize and deify one's own intellect - the heresy of Rationalism. We are not about to go down the road paved by Kant, are we? Remember, the Scriptures are the Word of God, even if we don't understand them fully, we must not deny its dictates - that God desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
In the way you seem to be speaking of it, the extra factor (man's free will) is actually the deciding factor in salvation.
This will is maleable by the ever-present graces offered by God - not by our own intellect and desires. Thus, it is incorrect to assume that God has no role to play BECAUSE of man's free will. Quite the opposite. We absolutely require God's sanctifying grace to move our will to please Him.
Free will, in the way you are using the term, cannot be free if God controls.
Free will is not free if there is no choice. When something becomes a necessity, it is not free. Are you making a free will choice when someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something? No, your are being coerced.
How in the world does it show love to us for Him to die if it wasn't necessary? And the quote you must be thinking of does not apply. If I said to my wife "I love you honey, I'm doing this for you", and then jumped off a building, would that really be showing love for my wife?
"There is no greater love than this, that a man die for his friends". IF your death was vicarious sacrifice, then it WOULD be an incredible act of self-giving. Surely, you are aware by now that love = giving of yourself?
If Jesus didn't HAVE to die to save us, then He committed blind suicide. I conclude that Christ gave His life FOR us because it was the only way.
Tsk, tsk. You make God the Father out to be a blood-thirsty tyrant, rather than a loving Father. Christ obeyed the Father's Will to the end. You call Christ's death suicide, but it is ultimate trust in His Father's love.
I would still say it was one purpose of them. I'll borrow one of your own types of arguments and ask why would God give a set of Commandments He knew no one could keep to His standards?
Laws are meant to be kept - regardless of another's evil intent on breaking them. Society sets moral standards that are meant to be followed for the good of all. And yet, people break those laws. Hmm, let's just get rid of the legislative branch of the government...
A major reason must have been to show us this was not the way to heaven.
I just finished reading the first 35 verses of Psalm 119. I don't find your concept of the Law in Scriptures, but rather see the Law as a great gift given to man...
It is immaterial if it is categorized as a side effect of men or not, it exists, God is in full control, so He willed it.
I think it would be more proper to say that sin is NOT an existence, but a lack of an existence, namely, good. Thus, God did not create on non-existence. At least that is the concept that the Greek and Latin Fathers have taught from 1500-1700 years ago. Again, we are probably dealing with varying "will's" or "desires" of God.
If God sees that a man will choose 'A', then God will choose 'B'. If God really was in control, He would choose 'B' independently and then make sure that 'A' would make the corresponding "choice".
Or we can say that God foresees what it would take for a man to choose "A" and place the correct circumstances in man's path to choose "A".
NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE on our side has ever said that a regenerated man can only choose good.
I was quoting Harley at the time. I'd have to search to find that exact post. Perhaps you can mail him and ask for a clarification.
We would say that on the side of "good" choices, that man does not have the capability to make them independently of God.
There are differences between "morally good deeds" and "God pleasing deeds". They are sometimes mutually exclusive - such as the Pharisees and their "morally good deeds". Man doesn't necessarily need God to do "morally good deeds", but to perform ONE good and salutary act worthwhile and meritorious in God's eyes absolutely requires God's graces. "For without me, you can do nothing good".
Your side disagrees, and says that man IS "good" enough to make good choices, with help BUT STILL, independently of God (wounded vs. total depravity). Where is each side placing its faith concerning salvation?
This is a perfect example of the caricature of the Catholic position I have described in the introduction of this post. See my immediately preceding response for clarification.
The second you say "plan accordingly", whether outside of time or not, that means God is dependent because God's plan would have been different BUT FOR man's decisions. The only way out would be to say that God's plan is not implemented in full because man's decisions necessarily deviate from what God would have planned had He been in control. (You said that God only gives us the tools to do what He wants, but of course, that doesn't always work out, so therefore the plan God would have made without man's input is thwarted.)
I am pressed for time, so I will try to answer this quickly. Forgive me if it is not precise. God has a particular will for man. How man and God interact, I must humbly say this is a mystery of faith that man's rational thought will never grasp upon. Any system that attempts to explain how God and man interact is bound to run into difficulties in explanation. What is important is that we do not ignore parts of the faith so as to rationalize it. And that is what I see happening by denying man's activity or denying that God does not desire all men to be saved because it doesn't place God in a box of one's intellect...
Regards