Which was the point of my reply to your statement that evil is absence of God. Evil can only be the result of the free will to reject God. If there is no free will, there is no possibility of evil, FK.
Thus, scripturally, there is no need to specifically qualify our will as free any more than there is a need for the Bible to specifically use the term Holy Trinity for both to be true and obvious to all (except to Calvinists).
Calvinists fully believe that we can reject God.
No, Calvinists fully believe that we must reject God. You confirmed that in the very next sentence In fact, we're born to do it. If we are born to reject God, we do not reject God willingly. That much we agree. But once made aware of God, you continue to believe that, by virtue of our nature, we must reject Him unless He compels us otherwise. At no point do Calvinists admit that man, by virtue of his intellect, chooses God or chooses to continue to reject God.
Now, we are born without the knowledge of God but, when God knocks (repeatedly) on our hearts, by virtue of our nature we tend to reject God, but by virtue of our intellect, we are free to either reject or accept His love, a decision we make freely because He endowed us with that freedom.
I look at it as I would look at an addiction. We follow "feels-good" principle of our flesh, by nature, even if our intellect tells us that it may not be good for us. We will repeatedly be drawn to do what is necessary to continue the addiction against our better judgment, so we need help. But help can come only when you, in your mind, freely decide, by virtue of your intellect, that the addiction (no matter how good it feels) is wrong, and wish to overcome it. You then seek help because it is impossible to overcome on one's own. It is only then that we realize that help was always there.
This all goes back to my original objection to Calvinism, namely that denying free will by necessity denies the possibility of evil (and makes evil, sin, and the need for our redemption meaningless). By necessity, our actions, then, are simply an extension of God's will. Since God cannot choose evil, the fact that evil exists, proves that theory false.
Amen.
I must disagree. satan's efforts certainly lead to evil in our world. We are fooled all the time into making bad decisions. Just like with Harley's point about Eve. If Eve made an informed free will choice to disobey God, then why did Adam get all the blame? Scripture does not support, without a wild interpretation, that Eve and Mary are mirrors in the way that Adam and Christ were. Scripture is clear that sin came through only Adam. (More on your quote later.)
Thus, scripturally, there is no need to specifically qualify our will as free any more than there is a need for the Bible to specifically use the term Holy Trinity for both to be true and obvious to all (except to Calvinists).
I appreciate your position of necessity to say that an evidence of truth is that something is NOT in the Bible. :).
No, Calvinists fully believe that we must reject God. You confirmed that in the very next sentence "In fact, we're born to do it." If we are born to reject God, we do not reject God willingly. That much we agree. But once made aware of God, you continue to believe that, by virtue of our nature, we must reject Him unless He compels us otherwise. At no point do Calvinists admit that man, by virtue of his intellect, chooses God or chooses to continue to reject God.
We are born with a sin nature, through Adam. On our own, we are doomed and have no chance of salvation. No manner of intellect is enough to freely choose God on our own. If you believe that it is our intellect that makes the difference (final decision), then you believe in a man-centered theology. More power in man, less power in God. We reject that and believe in a God-centered theology. God is sovereign and He ordains the nature of the universe and all of its inhabitants (including their actions), according to His good, pleasing, and perfect will.
You say that if we are born to reject God, we do not reject God willingly. You imply that we think God forces us to sin. None of this is correct. Generally speaking, we act according to our nature. IIRC, you do not believe in the sin nature of man, but the Catholics and the rest of us do.
The sin nature IS the absolute will to reject God. It cannot be overcome on our own, and an offer is still not enough. To believe that man's intellect can overcome it is, again, a man-centered theology.
Our intellect, as opposed to our nature, to choose to sin comes into play after salvation, for sin happens, even though we have a regenerated heart, and God is not the author of evil. So, the intellect comes into play, but it is not for good. We experience our intellect working for good after salvation, but the root of it all is still God.
Now, we are born without the knowledge of God but, when God knocks (repeatedly) on our hearts, by virtue of our nature we tend to reject God, but by virtue of our intellect, we are free to either reject or accept His love, a decision we make freely because He endowed us with that freedom.
As of the post I am responding to, no one has yet to answer my question about whether this free will choice is done with full information. Does God knock on everyone's heart equally, since God loves everyone? If so, then whose intellect would choose hell over heaven? It doesn't make sense.
I look at it as I would look at an addiction. ... But help can come only when you, in your mind, freely decide, by virtue of your intellect, that the addiction (no matter how good it feels) is wrong, and wish to overcome it. You then seek help because it is impossible to overcome on one's own. It is only then that we realize that help was always there.
What percentage of addicts, do you suppose, use their intellect to decide they need help, and then accept it? Not very many, right? Is that how you see the narrow path, based on intellect? Who gives us our intellect? Doesn't God bless some more than others with intellect? Is this God's love for all?
This all goes back to my original objection to Calvinism, namely that denying free will by necessity denies the possibility of evil (and makes evil, sin, and the need for our redemption meaningless). By necessity, our actions, then, are simply an extension of God's will. Since God cannot choose evil, the fact that evil exists, proves that theory false.
No, the false part is your assertion that denying free will denies the possibility of evil. You won't distinguish between free will to do good in God's eyes, and free will to do evil. God is only good, not evil. Therefore, God can cause us to do good, whether it is in our salvation, or good works thereafter. God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things. This view is perfectly consistent within itself.