A Brick Wall for Arminians

On which they may bloody their heads: being an Insurmountable Obstacle constructed of facts against which their churches and ministers may weary themselves, but which they cannot surmount nor circumnavigate.

Those who espouse humanism in theology are known as Arminians. There are varying shades of these views. Basically, however, they all hold that the eternal destiny of the individual will be determined and brought about by that individual. Some hold that a particular religious rite brings about regeneration or the new birth. Most often this rite is baptism. Those who hold this particular sub-view of Arminianism are said to hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Modern Arminian Baptists (along with other “baptistic” groups) invariably teach that the human faith or the freewill decision of an individual is the basis on which he or she is regenerated. This position is called decisional regeneration because to those who hold this view, a “decision for Christ” precedes and brings about the new birth.

Usually these Arminian Baptists (and their Protestant fellow-travellers) describe the act on which they believe the new birth is predicated in certain terms which are accepted among them. They often require “a decision for Christ.” Sometimes they will speak of “praying the sinner’s prayer” or “making a decision for Christ.” Others speak of “opening your heart’s door to Jesus,” while some instruct lost people to “invite Jesus into your heart.” They may speak of “taking Jesus as your Savior” while others insist that the lost person must “take Christ as both Lord and Savior.” But whatever exact term or terms may be used, the basic concept is that there is something which a lost person must be induced to do in order to bring about his or her new birth.

I cannot see any essential difference between baptismal regeneration (requiring baptism in order to bring about the new birth) and decisional regeneration (requiring a decision in order to bring about the new birth). Both are fundamentally the same in that they require an act on the part of a spiritually dead sinner in order for God to make that sinner alive spiritually.

All who hold any semblance of Baptist (or “baptistic”) views claim to be New Testament Christians and that their churches are of the New Testament sort. They without exception maintain that they follow the explicit teachings of that portion of the Bible which is known as the New Testament. Many Arminian ministers and churches clamor the loudest that they alone follow the New Testament Church patterns. Often those who are most insistent in calling themselves New Testament Baptists or New Testament Churches are also the most insistent in demanding that unsaved individuals “do something” in order to be born again.

Having set forth the fundamental views of these Arminians let us look at the wall against which they are forced to bloody their heads, as it were. The wall is this: any minister or church must, in order to have a valid claim as an authentic New Testament Church, conduct themselves in essentially the same manner in which the churches and ministers of the apostolic era functioned. Matters which are incidental, such as the use of pews, meeting houses, plastic communion cups, pulpits, and the like have no bearing on the fundamental or basic nature of either the minister, group, or the kind of gospel message proclaimed. Incidentals of this sort do not concern us at this time. But essentials are another matter. And in one great essential difference—one basic, fundamental, cardinal, and vital matter—these Arminians have erred from the practice of New Testament era churches. Just as the kind of a tree can be known by the fruit it produces, this essential departure from New Testament practice springs from the corrupt doctrine which is believed, preached and taught by these Arminians. Jesus said, “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit” (Matthew 12:33). Speaking of false prophets, Jesus said, “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:16-18). My point is that there is an essential practice which is found in all Arminian churches and which is routinely followed by all their ministers which is a fruit of a doctrinal error. The practice is unbiblical and is tied inextricably to the unscriptural doctrine which they hold!

The wall against which all Arminians can only bloody their heads is the truth about their invitation system! Universally, at the close of their services, their ministers invite the unsaved to “come forward and get saved.” Perhaps their language is a bit more sophisticated and their grammar more upscale, but their intent is consistently the same! That this is the expected practice among them is known to all who have visited their services.

There is nothing wrong with urging, beseeching, inviting, and warning lost individuals that they must come savingly to Jesus Christ or else be eternally lost. New Testament preachers acted in this way, but did nothing more or less. No New Testament preacher ever urged a physical act upon the purely spiritual matter of the new birth. Jesus told Nicodemus “. . . Ye must be born again” (John 3:7), but nowhere in the Bible will you find where Jesus told Nicodemus there was something he must do in order to be regenerated or born again!

The modern invitation which urges lost individuals to “come forward” and “do something” in order to qualify for or bring about the new birth is without Biblical precedent! There is just no place in the Bible where any apostle or New Testament preacher ever did such a thing! This wall of fact is there! The Arminian must either concede that he is doing something unscriptural or else bloody his head in an effort to destroy these facts. The use of such phrases as “open your heart’s door and let Jesus come in,” “invite Jesus into your heart,” “pray the sinner’s prayer,” “make a decision for Christ,” etc., are all the innovations and inventions of men. They cannot be found either in word or in concept in the Bible! Those ministers and churches who insist on giving such invitations do so at their own peril, for they by these acts disqualify themselves from following the example of the New Testament!

Not only is there no New Testament example for engaging in such an invitation system, there is no Scripture which instructs that such a thing should be done! Baptists (and others claiming to follow the New Testament) claim to require a “thus saith the Lord” for all that they do. Baptists do not baptize infants (among other reasons) because (1) there is no Bible precedent for doing such a thing and (2) there is no Bible injunction requiring it. The same two things can be said with regard to giving invitations for people to come forward and “get saved!” There is just no Bible for such a practice!

Perhaps it will be helpful to those interested in truth to point out that the modern invitation system was unheard of prior to about 170 years ago! The religious humanist Charles Finney is credited, and rightly so, with having developed the modern invitation. And he was not even a Baptist! Yet thousands of so-called Baptist churches slavishly follow his Arminian philosophy to this day, in spite of the fact that there is neither Bible example or instruction to do such a thing!

Did God save sinners in the New Testament era? Of course He did! Did He do it without any preacher giving such an invitation? Obviously He did. And we might add that God is still saving sinners apart from this man-made contrivance—and in some cases He is pleased to save His people in spite of and in the very presence of this unscriptural practice! (That God does save some in spite of unscriptural invitations can in no way be construed as an excuse for their continued use!)

Let the Arminian scrounge up all the arguments he can muster! He cannot escape! There the wall stands and it is the wall of God’s Word and the facts of New Testament history! There is absolutely not the slightest hint that any preacher of the apostolic age ever invited the lost to “come forward” in order to be saved! Neither is there instruction from God to commence doing such a thing! The wall stands! Men and churches which require this innovation—this man-made practice—are acting without Scriptural basis! Let them bloody their heads all they will. They will never find Bible proof for their practice. And this wall extends the whole length of time and throughout the whole of Divine Revelation, hence there is no going over it or around it. Honest men will admit it!

The invitation system is a corrupt fruit of a rotten doctrinal system which makes man the master of his own destiny. The Arminian system, to whatever degree it is followed, robs God of His majestic sovereignty over the souls of men. God said, “All souls are mine . . .” (Ezek. 18:4) and He has the right to do with His creatures as pleases Him! Some Arminians are willing to use the term sovereignty with regard to God in certain aspects, but limit God’s right to dispense His grace as He pleases. They will allow that God is sovereign in all matters except in the salvation of the lost. Their rotten doctrine is this: man is master of his own destiny, God is not in control. Man determines his eternal destiny: God can only respond as an obedient flunky to the decision of spiritually dead sinners! Thus God is reduced to an anxious, hand-wringing bystander who can only react to the freewill decision of dead sinners and save them after they “decide for Christ!”

The corrupt doctrinal root is seen when men deny that man is totally depraved and therefore totally unable to do anything about his spiritual condition. The Bible says, “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins” and again, “even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)” (Eph. 2:1, 5). The Greek word for dead is nekros and means a corpse! Obviously God wants us to understand that a lost person can do as much toward his new birth as a corpse can do—NOTHING! The Arminian says that any lost person can come to God IF HE WILL do so. Forget what the Arminian humanist says! Find out what the Bible says! Read what God says and believe it! The word can means “having the ability to do something.” The Arminian says “men can,” but God says, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil” (Jer. 13:23). Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44). Again Jesus said, “Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” (John 6:65). Do not fall for the lie that “God enables all men” or “God draws all who hear the gospel” for this is obviously not the case. Those whom God enables are the ones Christ will raise up at the last day! The Arminian system teaches that all men can believe savingly on Christ of their own volition. In the Bible, however, we read that Jesus told certain men why they did not believe on Him. He said, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you” (John 10:26). Forget what the Arminians say. Jesus said men do not believe because they are not his sheep! Now, I suppose, some Arminian will try to prove that there is something a goat can do in order to become a sheep!

This corrupt doctrinal root is seen again when men insist that Christ died for all men alike. Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). The Arminian, without any Scripture to back him up, insists that Jesus died for the goats as well as for the sheep! Every time the name Jesus is spoken or read or thought, it ought to bring to mind the reason the Son of God was so named: “. . . and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Jesus did not save His earthly people, the Jews, from their sins, but He did save “his people”— those who had been given to Him by the Father! Jesus prayed to His Father, saying, “As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him” (John 17:2). In that same prayer Christ deliberately made it clear He was not praying for “the world” (according to the Arminian views “the world” means all mankind) for He said, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou has given me; for they are thine” and again, “. . . they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:9, 14). God gave some people to Christ and it was for them that He died in order to pay for their sins.

Again this corrupt doctrinal root is seen when men insist that “God loves everybody.” The idea that God loves everyone alike is basic to the Arminian position, but is clearly an unscriptural notion as the following verses will demonstrate. If God loves everybody, why did He say, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Mal. 1:3, Romans 9:13). Certainly this has a bearing on the descendants of these two people, but the words were spoken of individuals and that before they were ever born! Someone will say that hate only means that God loved one less than the other. That is exactly right! God loved Esau so much less than He loved Jacob that He hated him! Again Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him” (John 14:21), which clearly shows that God’s love, and Christ’s love is directed toward a specific people, not all mankind in general. Even in the Old Testament it is clear that God hates some people (not just their sins) for He said, “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: . . . A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:16, 19). These are individual people whom God hates! Similarly the Psalmist wrote of God that “. . . thou hatest all workers of iniquity . . . the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man” (Psa. 5:5, 6). (Abhor is a synonym for hate!) Proverbs 22:14 says, “The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: HE THAT IS ABHORRED OF THE LORD shall fall therein.” Obviously some men are abhorred or hated by God! Psalm 10:3 says, “For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth THE COVETOUS, WHOM THE LORD ABHORRETH.” And again in the New Testament we read, “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth . . .” (Heb. 12:6) where the whole argument is this: those whom God loves He chastens. Others He does not chasten because He does not love them for they are bastards and not true sons. John prophesies regarding those members of the little church in Philadelphia, “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” (Rev. 3:9)—obviously in contrast to those whom God does NOT love, else His love for them would mean nothing! John 3:16 is often cited, but all honest students of the Word must admit that “the world” is used by John in a number of ways, none of which mean all men who ever have lived or ever will live.

There are other corruptions of doctrine which are also part of the root of the rotten fruit which is the invitation system. However, to any candid and serious student of the Word of God, these I have cited ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that “a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” In this case, the evil fruit is the invitation system which is totally unscriptural. The corrupt tree is humanism which dressed in religious garb is nothing more or less than Arminianism in its various degrees and shades.

And so, to the Arminian reader, of whatever degree you may be infected with that corrupt doctrine, I say, go ahead and bloody your heads on this impregnable wall. The wall is one of true facts. The facts are clear. There is neither Bible precedent nor instruction for your man-made invitations. You deliberately “invite lost people to come forward to get saved” because your theology demands it—and you do so without a shred of Bible to back up your practice! These facts ought to be enough to cause any honest Christian to reconsider and abandon that theology which demands such an unscriptural practice! Search the Scriptures! Leave behind your humanistic views and embrace the sovereign God of the Bible who delights to save His people and is well able to do so. Say with Paul, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? what if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make know the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called . . .” (Rom. 9:21-24). Give up your unscriptural practice and the corrupt doctrine which spawned it and requires it! If you would be a New Testament Christian in a New Testament Church you must believe and practice those divinely revealed things which the churches of the New Testament believed and practiced. To continue with your unscriptural invitations marks you as something other than New Testament in doctrine and practice!

I found my way to Christ by His calling. He had no need to find me...He knew me from before time and called me out of my wickedness. I was in the dark. I merely followed His voice into the light. I reached out to Him because He first reached out to me.

I live in the "burned over district" Do you know what that is?An area that became apostate thanks to the phony altar calls of Finney.

If God can give a prophecy through an ass .He can certainly regenerate and bring to repentance a man during an altar call

But the bottom line is the altar call represents the heresy that man chooses God... Every man ever saved at an altar call had an appointment with God that night..He would have been saved during 'Sound of Music" if he had gone there instead.

Salvation is NOT Man's intelligence+ the right place + the right time+ the right message +the right music + mans will + Gods grace=salvation

Salvation is 100% Gods Grace...if it is anything else it is not God! It is not Salvation

Then why bother? Do you invite people to worship with you? What exactly do you tell them, if you don't invite them to consider the Truth of the Gospel? You ask people to what? exactly? See if they feel like God elected them? Assume they are elect? Act like they are elcet and see if it fits?

This entire subject is just bizarre, to me. Can anyone explain?

"Don't the Arminians argue that the "altar call" or a "baptism" is merely an outward sign of something that has already happened internally? That it serves as a witness."

That hasn't been my experience. I have seen many times when people have said "walk this aisle and be saved", or "repeat this prayer after me and be saved". These are folks who like to boast about how many "they" have saved", and how many "decisions" were made during their services. I know, personally, of one young man who went down an aisle looking for the bathroom (at age 7) who quickly found himself "saved" and baptized. His experience was one of frustration and discouragement, since he subsequently discovered in his adult years that he hadn't been any more saved than my dog. After his true encounter with Christ he shared with me just how deluded he had been.

I am afraid that there are many countless thousands who believe that they are "saved" just because they did what some preacher said was required, never mind that they never repented nor believed.

That hasn't been my experience. I have seen many times when people have said "walk this aisle and be saved", or "repeat this prayer after me and be saved".

I have seen differently. The Baptists I am familiar with always said that the Baptism was not anything other than a witness. I thought Baptists were Arminians?

These are folks who like to boast about how many "they" have saved", and how many "decisions" were made during their services.

Which is vanity, of course.

I am afraid that there are many countless thousands who believe that they are "saved" just because they did what some preacher said was required, never mind that they never repented nor believed.

If a preacher was putting people through some rote routine without engaging the people to repent and believe first, then he is in error.

(Of course, our rote routines are not entered into on a whim, but only after a long period of study and prayer.)

Would you believe I have seen the "sinners prayer " written on the back of a program. During the service the pastor says ..NOW EVERYONE read this prayer with me.

Once I asked what happened to "repent " he said we can get to that AFTER they are saved...Incredible!

Part of the problem in the church today (IMHO) is we expect taking someone unsaved to church is important. That is NOT the way the early church worked..you were saved and baptised BEFORE you went to the church

My expectation is that God will select those that are His and then act sovereignly to save him....in church out of church , Pastor or no pastor ...

How can one seek to be awakened, if one is already dead in sin? It seems to me that one cannot seek anything unless they are already awake or enlivened?

That assumes "awakened" and "enlivened" to mean the same thing. Metaphors only carry so far before breaking down, and that is the issue with Calvinism's "regeneration comes first" stance. If we were LITERALLY dead in sins, then there could be no awakening before being made alive again. But being LITERALLY dead in sins would mean that we couldn't do ANYTHING. We would have no desire even to search after false gods, since they're products of humanity's spiritual longing. If someone's already found, they don't need to seek. Yet if Calvinism is true, then they won't seek until they're already found, which is manifestly pointless.

Your question really goes to the issue of what does it mean to be saved. Does salvation begin and end in regeneration? Does it occur when one receives pardon for sin? Does it mean initial sanctification? Does it mean conformation to the image of Christ? Arminians tend to obfuscate what salvation means and includes. That obfuscation renders debate difficult. If you could define what you mean by "saved" and what constitutes the order or process of salvation, then we could have a fruitful discussion.

I have always assumed salvation to be synonymous with regeneration. Regeneration, of course, includes in it, initial sanctification and pardon for sin(s). Conforming to the image of Christ and the "end" or purpose of salvation are both whole other issues.

So the question is again this: If an awakened person is seeking after salvation, how can they be regenerate/saved already? If they are regenerate/saved already, why should/would they seek after something they already have?

Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The Lord added to the church those that He had determined to save

So such as should be saved means the same thing as those that he had determined to save??

Some people might translate "such as should be saved" as those who have repented and asked God for forgiveness and for salvation through Jesus Christ. I would contend that this definition is more in keeping with the entirity of Acts 2.

Then again, I grew disillusioned with truthful portrayal of Wesleyan-Arminianism on these boards a long time ago, so please do carry on

The below is from an article on Calvin and Arminius that was already posted

It is not uncommon in modern Calvinism-versus-Arminianism discussions to hear someone confuse Arminius and Pelagius. Some modern Calvinists adopt Calvin's arguments thinking that they are making points against Arminius, but Calvin's arguments were actually directed against Pelagius (among others).

Calvin frequently addressed Pelagian views, but only rarely addressed views that would later become known as unique Arminian views. Even today Calvinists often assume that all Arminians hold Pelagian views, and thus they manufacture straw men to shoot down in their arguments.

Nor is Arminianism to be identified with Semi-Pelagianism. The Semi-Pelagian view stands somewhere between Pelagius and Augustine. It accepts the fall with its corrupting effects, and holds that divine grace is needed for salvation and Christian living. However, according to this view man can, without divine help, desire the divine help needed for salvation. So, while Semi-Pelagianism assigns more necessity to grace than does Pelagianism, it still holds that man retains what John Cassian called the beginning of faith — man can by his unaided will decide that he needs and wants salvation. But even this view is significantly different from Arminius. (This difference is completely overlooked by Loraine Boettner. See his The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1932, pp 47-48) Notice how Arminius describes the inability of man and the necessity of grace.

Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace.… This grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good.… I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will is stubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins. (The Writings of James Arminius, Vol 2, p 472-473)

Amen! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/712991/posts

I believe your answer indicates the root of the problem. The fact that man seeks after false gods does not indicate that an individual is alive in Christ. To the contrary, it indicates that their condition is dead in sin. If you read Romans 1, it is clear that man's denial of God, led to His giving man over to all manner of sin, including idolatry. Worshipping the creature, rather than an indication of man's spiritual longing, is indicative of man's rebellion. Hence, the religious Hindu is as lost as the man in the gay pride parade.

"If an awakened person is seeking after salvation, how can they be regenerate/saved already? If they are regenerate/saved already, why should/would they seek after something they already have?"

Answer: One who is genuinely regerated will seek after Christ. They will embrace Jesus Christ freely offered in the gospel. Until that soul actually closes with Christ, through faith, they are not saved from the wrath of God. However, the divine transaction of the effects of grace in the sould are sometimes so instantaneous, one cannot distinguish between the moment of regeneration and the embracing of Christ. That is why any discussion of the ordo salutis ultimately cannot fit within easy categories. The bottom line is clear though: God is the author of salvation and He is the goal of it as well. Man is passive in his regeneration, but clearly active in elements of his salvation.

In addition, the Bible indicates that by nature no man seeks after God. Further it is clear, that we by nature are dead in sins and trespasses. I don't have time to cit them all for you.

Second, I must disagree with you about the question of whether regeneration is equivalent to salvation. Scripture is replete with examples where salvation is equivalent with regeneration, salvation is equal to justification or equal to definitive sanctification. By nature, no one wants to place their life in the hands of Jesus Christ and repent of their sin to a righteous God. Something must account for an individual having a longing to embrace Jesus. That individual had to be regenerated or made alive by the Holy Spirit of God.

The evidence of regeneration is repentance, confession of sin, trust in Christ, as well as the other marks of salvation. They do not appear to me to be the causative agents. The reason is that they cannot account for the divine act of sovereign grace in transferring a sould out of death into life. If my decision did so, it would be tantamount to the raising of Lazarus from the tomb. I do not hold within my soul such power, only God does.

That being said, I cannot presume to know the heart of any man. If he has repented, believes in Christ, and shows the marks of a Christian, I embrace him as one in Christ. I do not claim that only Calvinists can be saved, because the question is not whether one embraces the doctrines of Calvin, but whether one trust in Jesus Christ ALONE for one's salvation. Not their decision. Not their church. Only Jesus.

"Calvinist soul-winners do not preach like Calvinists, they preach like Arminians, as if every individual they are speaking to has a choice to make."

I believe that Calvinistic ministers preach like the apostles in the book of Acts. But there are some differences between the Calvinist and the arminian.

The fact is that every individual does have a choice to make. A sinner must confess their sins and believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. The problem is that every person is by nature dead in sin, dead to the things of God.

There is a call in in the preaching of the gospel, a promiscuous call for sinners to be saved. However, that call has no effect at unless the Holy Spirit effectually calls those whom Christ intends to save. For most, the words go in one ear and out the other. For them, the call has no effect. But in some, the Holy Spirit regenerates and moves in the heart such that the individual is convinced of their sin and miserty, they accept the claims of Christ, their minds are enlightened, and their will is renewed so that they willingly embrace Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the Calvinist (as long as they are not of the hyper-calvinist variety or deny the free offer of the gospel) and the Arminian can both preach very similarly. They both make the appeal to the individual to be saved.

However, the Calvinist leaves the effect of his ministry to the Lord, who alone can regenerate the heart so that the individual desires salvation. The Arminian preacher must rely on whatever response he receives from the audience that hears him. Hence, if few respond and decide to follow Jesus, it is because the preacher has failed to convince the sinner to do so.

As a result, the salvation of souls depends on the skill and persuasiveness of the preacher. If sinners do not exercise their free will to choose Christ, it is because the preacher was ineffective. It could lead an Arminain minister to great depression. As a result, many Arminian preachers opt to use all sorts of measures to stir up the faculties of the individual to exercise the will. In church history, that included everything from the altar call and the Amen corner to special appeals and music geared toward influencing the emotions. This has led to much excess.

The Calvinist, not relying on a decisional model, but rather the sovereign regenerating act of the Holy Spirit, who cannot be resisted, leaves the success of his efforts in the hands of a sovereing God.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Where has any Calvinist ever said that man does not have to make a choice.........show me dec..