Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
PREDESTINATION seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out his scenario.
To get a handle on the puzzling relationship between predestination and free will, we must first define free will. That definition itself is a matter of great debate. Probably the most common definition says free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.
On the surface this is very appealing. There are no elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems. On the one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens—it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it—then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives.
Consider the case of Joseph and his brothers. When Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, God’s providence was at work. Years later, when Joseph was reunited with his brothers in Egypt, he declared to them, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Here the motive was the decisive factor determining whether the act was good or evil. God’s involvement in Joseph’s dilemma was good; the brothers’ involvement was evil. There was a reason why Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. They had an evil motivation. Their decision was neither spontaneous nor neutral. They were jealous of their brother. Their choice to sell him was prompted by their evil desires.
The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral, why would it choose the right or the left? It is something like the problem encountered by Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire cat in the tree. She asked the cat, “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice answered, “I don’t know.” “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”
Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.
Another famous illustration of the same problem is found in the story of the neutral-willed mule. The mule had no prior desires, or equal desires in two directions. His owner put a basket of oats to his left and a basket of wheat on his right. If the mule had no desire whatsoever for either oats or wheat he would choose neither and starve. If he had an exactly equal disposition toward oats as he had toward wheat he would still starve. His equal disposition would leave him paralyzed. There would be no motive. Without motive there would be no choice. Without choice there would be no food. Without food soon there would be no mule.
We must reject the neutral-will theory not only because it is irrational but because, as we shall see, it is radically unbiblical.
Christian thinkers have given us two very important definitions of free will. We will consider first the definition offered by Jonathan Edwards in his classic work, On the Freedom of the Will.
Edwards defined the will as “the mind choosing.” Before we ever can make moral choices we must first have some idea of what it is we are choosing. Our selection is then based upon what the mind approves or rejects. Our understanding of values has a crucial role to play in our decision-making. My inclinations and motives as well as my actual choices are shaped by my mind. Again, if the mind is not involved, then the choice is made for no reason and with no reason. It is then an arbitrary and morally meaningless act. Instinct and choice are two different things.
A second definition of free will is “the ability to choose what we want.” This rests on the important foundation of human desire. To have free will is to be able to choose according to our desires. Here desire plays the vital role of providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice.
Now for the tricky part. According to Edwards a human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. What I call Edwards Law of Choice is this: “The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment.” This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined.
I said it was tricky. This sounds like a blatant contradiction to say that every choice is free and yet every choice is determined. But “determined” here does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one’s internal motivation or desire. In shorthand the law is this: Our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination, which is the essence of freedom.
Think for a minute about your own choices. How and why are they made? At this very instant you are reading the pages of this book. Why? Did you pick up this book because you have an interest in the subject of predestination, a desire to learn more about this complex subject? Perhaps. Maybe this book has been given to you to read as an assignment. Perhaps you are thinking, “I have no desire to read this whatsoever. I have to read it, and I am grimly wading through it to fulfill somebody else’s desire that I read it. All things being equal I would never choose to read this book.”
But all things are not equal, are they? If you are reading this out of some kind of duty or to fulfill a requirement, you still had to make a decision about fulfilling the requirement or not fulfilling the requirement. You obviously decided that it was better or more desirable for you to read this than to leave it unread. Of that much I am sure, or you would not be reading it right now.
Every decision you make is made for a reason. The next time you go into a public place and choose a seat (in a theater, a classroom, a church building), ask yourself why you are sitting where you are sitting. Perhaps it is the only seat available and you prefer to sit rather than to stand. Perhaps you discover that there is an almost unconscious pattern emerging in your seating decisions. Maybe you discover that whenever possible you sit toward the front of the room or toward the rear. Why? Maybe it has something to do with your eyesight. Perhaps you are shy or gregarious. You may think that you sit where you sit for no reason, but the seat that you choose will always be chosen by the strongest inclination you have at the moment of decision. That inclination may merely be that the seat closest to you is free and that you don’t like to walk long distances to find a place to sit down.
Decision-making is a complex matter because the options we encounter are often varied and many. Add to that that we are creatures with many and varied desires. We have different, often even conflicting, motivations.
Consider the matter of ice cream cones. Oh, do I have trouble with ice cream cones and ice cream sundaes. I love ice cream. If it is possible to be addicted to ice cream then I must be classified as an ice cream addict. I am at least fifteen pounds overweight, and I am sure that at least twenty of the pounds that make up my body are there because of ice cream. Ice cream proves the adage to me, “A second on the lips; a lifetime on the hips.” And, “Those who indulge bulge.” Because of ice cream I have to buy my shirts with a bump in them.
Now, all things being equal, I would like to have a slim, trim body. I don’t like squeezing into my suits and having little old ladies pat me on the tummy. Tummy-patting seems to be an irresistible temptation for some folks. I know what I have to do to get rid of those excess pounds. I have to stop eating ice cream. So I go on a diet. I go on the diet because I want to go on the diet. I want to lose weight. I desire to look better. Everything is fine until someone invites me to Swenson’s. Swenson’s makes the greatest “Super Sundaes” in the world. I know I shouldn’t go to Swenson’s. But I like to go to Swenson’s. When the moment of decision comes I am faced with conflicting desires. I have a desire to be thin and I have a desire for a Super Sundae. Whichever desire is greater at the time of decision is the desire I will choose. It’s that simple.
Now consider my wife. As we prepare to celebrate our silver wedding anniversary I am aware that she is exactly the same weight as she was the day we were married. Her wedding gown still fits her perfectly. She has no great problem with ice cream. Most eating establishments only carry vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. Any of those make my mouth water, but they offer no enticement to my wife. Aha! But there is Baskin Robbins. They have pralines and cream ice cream. When we go to the mall and pass a Baskin Robbins my wife goes through a strange transformation. Her pace decelerates, her hands get clammy, and I can almost detect the beginning of salivation. (That’s salivation, not salvation.) Now she experiences the conflict of desires that assaults me daily.
We always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment. Even external acts of coercion cannot totally take away our freedom. Coercion involves acting with some kind of force, imposing choices upon people that, if left to themselves, they would not choose. I certainly have no desire to pay the kind of income taxes that the government makes me pay. I can refuse to pay them, but the consequences are less desirable than paying them. By threatening me with jail the government is able to impose its will upon me to pay taxes.
Or consider the case of armed robbery. A gunman steps up to me and says, “Your money or your life.” He has just restricted my options to two. All things being equal I have no desire to donate my money to him. There are far more worthy charities than he. But suddenly my desires have changed as a result of his act of external coercion. He is using force to provoke certain desires within me. Now I must choose between my desire to live and my desire to give him my money. I might as well give him the money because if he kills me he will take my money anyway. Some people might choose to refuse, saying, “I would rather die than choose to hand this gunman my money. He’ll have to take it from my dead body.”
In either case, a choice is made. And it is made according to the strongest inclination at the moment. Think, if you can, of any choice you have ever made that was not according to the strongest inclination you had at the moment of decision. What about sin? Every Christian has some desire in his heart to obey Christ. We love Christ and we want to please him. Yet every Christian sins. The hard truth is that at the moment of our sin we desire the sin more strongly than we desire to obey Christ. If we always desired to obey Christ more than we desired to sin, we would never sin.
Does not the Apostle Paul teach otherwise? Does he not recount for us a situation in which he acts against his desires? He says in Romans, “The good that I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do” (Rom. 7:19, KJV). Here it sounds as if, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, Paul is teaching clearly that there are times in which he acts against his strongest inclination.
It is extremely unlikely that the apostle is here giving us a revelation about the technical operation of the will. Rather, he is stating plainly what every one of us has experienced. We all have a desire to flee from sin. The “all things being equal” syndrome is in view here. All things being equal, I would like to be perfect. I would like to be rid of sin, just as I would like to be rid of my excess weight. But my desires do not remain constant. They fluctuate. When my stomach is full it is easy to go on a diet. When my stomach is empty my desire level changes. Temptations arise with the changing of my desires and appetites. Then I do things that, all things being equal, I would not want to do.
Paul sets before us the very real conflict of human desires, desires that yield evil choices. The Christian lives within a battlefield of conflicting desires. Christian growth involves the strengthening of desires to please Christ accompanied by the weakening of desires to sin. Paul called it the warfare between the flesh and the Spirit.
To say that we always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment is to say that we always choose what we want. At every point of choice we are free and self-determined. To be self-determined is not the same thing as determinism. Determinism means that we are forced or coerced to do things by external forces. External forces can, as we have seen, severely limit our options, but they cannot destroy choice altogether. They cannot impose delight in things we hate. When that happens, when hatred turns to delight, it is a matter of persuasion, not coercion. I cannot be forced to do what I take delight in doing already.
The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous desires produce righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices.
Sproul, R. (. C. 1986. Chosen by God. Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL
Of course, as well as, Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.
And many other like verses. This has never been questioned. What is it you are arguing for? Is it creation, ex nihilo
? There is nothing in any verse of Scripture that says God created the material world or universe out of nothing. Do you believe nothing existed before this material universe? Do you believe God is "nothing?" What do you suppose this means, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...." (Acts 17:28)? And this, "and he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col. 1:17)?
Now this verse plainly says the worlds were made of something: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Heb. 11:3) It does not say, "things which are seen are made of nothing," it says, "things which are seen are made of things which do not appear," that is, things which are invisible, or "not seen."
Now the, "not seen," is not "nothing" or this verse would mean our faith was in nothing:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Now I explained all of this in an earlier post which I referred you to. I do not believe you are being entirely sincere in this. What difference does it make if the material world is made out of the eternal unseen supernatural existense? That does not damage to the nature of God, since all things spring from Him, including that very supernatural world this world is made from.
Ex nihilo is not taught in Scripture, it is a pagan idea. Why do you want to defend it?
Hank
Contingency is what Aquinas called it.
The Koran is a good example of a book that is considered completely sufficient and which therefore leads the likes of bin Laden to kill innocents.
The Bible does not contain everything that you need to know unless you are allowed to use you intellect to discover what it means in conjunction with revelation.
But Divine guidance is necessary. That guidance was not guaranteed to anyone outside of the Apostles and they passed it on. That is called the teaching authority of the Church. Think ofthe Bible as a Divine Constitution. Can anyone just stand up and interpret it? No! But we should not reduce God's Word to a set of books that can be missinterpreted by every person to their own whim.
So when we say that God created everything from nothing we can site scriptures which refer to the void before creation. But we can also state catagorically that only God is the Creator and therefore He made everything from nothing. Otherwise someone else would have to get the credit.
I see I have given you a wrong impression, which is my fault for attempting to discuss something quite complex as thought it could be expressed with a few off-hand comments.
I did not mean to imply that everything that is in the supernatural realm, such as angels, fallen or faithful, were necessarily eternal in the sense of co-existing with their creator from eternity to eternity. I also did not mean to imply that eternal things cannot change their state, which they surely can, as Satan exemplifies. Nevertheless, change cannot mean the same thing in the superantural world as it does in the temporal world, because change in the temporal world always requires, "time," which cannot be the case where "time" does not have meaning, which it does not in the eternal unseen.
Maybe this will be a better approach to the subject. In that realm we call the supernatural realm of God and angels, we might properly say, all things spring from God and have their origin in Him. I do not believe the word "create" is correct with regard to supernatural beings or events, however. The reason we think that way, is because we tend to think of the eternal realms in the same we think about the temporal realm, but in the eternal realm, things do not have beginnings and ends in time, but it is impossible for us to imagine beginnings and ends in any other way, because we are temporal beings.
With regard to the natural world, the world of matter, space, and time, it is correct to say all was created by God, because in this realm, things begin in time. I believe that is exactly what the Bible teaches, as well. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," does not mean, by heaven, the supernatural realm, but the very same we mean when we point to the stars and refer to them as the heavens.
The problem with the ex nihilo is that the concept of, "nothing," is meaningless. Nothing is zero, non-existense, total void. But God fills all-in-all, and wherever God is, there cannot be 'nothing' because God is something.
Let me say it this way. There is no existense independent of God, but God cannot be if there is no existense, and because God is, existense is, and that existense that must be because God is, is eternal, because God is eternal.
Hank
You might want to explain how something can be "before" something where there is no time. If the above is your premise, it is mistaken. "Time" and "space" are not things, but parameters or qualities, by which the material (spatial/temproal) world is measured. Time is a relational quality, the relationship between events. Space is nothing more than the measure of the relationship of material entities to one another in terms of direction and distance.
What God created is the material universe of entities and events which have those spacial/temporal qualities that are the province of the physical sciences.
Since there can never be nothing, because God is something, to say anything is done "out of nothing" is an absurdity that Aquinas fell for.
So when we say that God created everything from nothing we can site scriptures which refer to the void before creation.
Please do provide the Scripture you believe describes or names a "void," before creation. Remember, a void means a place where there is nothing. Ask yourself, is God nothing? Is there anyplace where there is not God. If there is not any place where God is not, and God is something, there can be no void.
Hank
Divine guidance is promised to all those who are children of God, and none needs to depend on the teaching or instruction of others, no matter who they claim to be.
Jas. 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Just thought you ought to have God's perspective on these issues, since men and churches usually have their own agenda, which is seldom the same as God's.
Hank
My big trouble is my commnand of the language because of the Dyslexia. I can speak on things a lot easier. But I am working on the written word.
When I was a child around 10-11 I would wonder about the beganning of existence.
The Lord tells us there is no beganning nor end. I guess in the scheme of eternal, that is true. Spirits are eternal!
Unfortunately, the purpose of this thread wasn't to discuss what we're now discussing. We kinda got off on a tangent and I'm hoping to return to the issue at hand, which is the relationship between God's sovereignty and omniscience and man's will.
If you accept the idea that man has some choice (and by 'choice' I mean the ability to decide between alternatives, not just the ability to do what 'he wants') then we have no disagreement!
We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will.
That man is responsible for sin and his own damnation, not God.
Between WHAT alternatives? Does man have the ability to decide between choosing and rejecting Christ? Yes. Does he have a cognitive ability to deny God's election? No. The reason we do disagree is because the relationship you see between the two is the exact opposite of what I see. You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around.
We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will.
Your statement is not consistent. The first half you make God sovereign, but in the second you relegate Him to a prophetic role. What it should read is either "We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He wills" or "We agree that God is in partial control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will."
That man is responsible for sin and his own damnation, not God.
I agree. Man is condemned by His own sinfulness, his own choice to reject God.
I actually came up with an interesting way to look at the relationship we're debating. I think I can actually better explain it using program logic, so if I get a chance I'll try to post the "source code" for the operation of redemption :)
You do not see a contradiction in what you said?
You state man has a 'choice' in accepting or rejecting Christ but, according to you, the 'choice' has already been made for Him by God!
Do you see the frustration that myself and 'Hank' have over this misuse of language?
Does he have a cognitive ability to deny God's election? No.
What do you mean by 'cognitive' ability?
Either the choice can be made or it is not a choice!
The reason we do disagree is because the relationship you see between the two is the exact opposite of what I see.
Yes, I see a choice being made, which means choosing between alternatives, for or against Christ.
You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around.
Well, then what you are saying is not a choice, at least by man!
We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will. Your statement is not consistent. The first half you make God sovereign, but in the second you relegate Him to a prophetic role.
Not at all. I know that God is able to handle free will decisions and factor them into His Plan.
God can be sovereign both directly and indirectly. God is still in total control, but is allowing that which He would not prefer to happen, happen.
Sin is an example of this, unless you are going to state that God wants you to sin?
What it should read is either "We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He wills" or "We agree that God is in partial control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will."
Depends on what you mean 'control'.
God is not responsible for the evil actions of either man or angel.
Thus, God does not make them do those evil acts which He deplores (Pr.6), but because He has given some limited freedom He allows those acts to happen and brings about good despite the acts.
He allows those acts because, if man were not free to reject God, they would not be free to accept God, an act that God takes pleasure in (Abraham, David, Moses, Paul).
Love demands a free response on the part of the both parties, and God gets pleasure out of being loved as well as loving. (Rev.4:11)
God after all, is Love (1Jn.4:9)
That man is responsible for sin and his own damnation, not God. I agree. Man is condemned by His own sinfulness, his own choice to reject God.
But you just said above that man does not have a choice to accept God, but he does have a 'choice' to reject Him?
This is the Calvinist redefinition of 'choice' that it consists of doing what one wants to do and not actually having a choice between alternatives (which is the normal usage of the term)
I actually came up with an interesting way to look at the relationship we're debating. I think I can actually better explain it using program logic, so if I get a chance I'll try to post the "source code" for the operation of redemption :)
Thank you. I will take a look at it, although I am not much good with computers. My former Pastor also used 'program' logic to show how God factored in free will to His Plan.
There is no contradiction. A paradox maybe, but no contradiction. Man's choice was not made for him. There are two separate choices in this equation: God's and man's. That God's choice does necessarily affect man's choice does not mean He makes the choice for him.
By cognitive ability, I mean that man has no knowledge of God's elective choice. The choice man is responsible for it whether or not to accept Christ, NOT whether or not to go along with God's elective choice. It's not like God chooses you and then tells you about it and you have to decide whether or not to go along with it. And even if it were, you still have to account for what leads to that decision which Arminians have not. It goes right back to the "secret ingredient" in man that causes him to choose or reject Christ.
Yes, I see a choice being made, which means choosing between alternatives, for or against Christ.
>>You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around.
Well, then what you are saying is not a choice, at least by man!
Notice I said 'proceeding from' not 'made by.' There is a distinct difference. In both Arminianism and Calvinism man has responsibility for his choice, and it is a valid choice...a choice as you said between two alternatives: accepting Christ or rejecting Him. That choice must proceed from something however...unless you maintain that it's random, in which case it is morally neutral and cannot therefore be justly condemnable. Man chooses based on desire, unless you believe that there is something within a man that would potentially compel him to choose against his desire (which in turn begs the questions "What is it?" and "Who put it there?"). If man's desire, as a result of the fall, is to sin and reject Christ, something must occur for him to change that...otherwise he's choosing against his desire without any rational motivation.
So clearly there is some means of external intervention (ie-"prevenient grace"). The question is this: what does that grace do to man's desire? If it brings it to a neutral place, how can man make any decision at all? If it takes it from desiring against to desiring for Christ, then that creates a problem for the Arminians who believe that prevenient grace is universally applied. Either some then choose against that desire (which as stated begs other questions that must be answered), or all choose Christ and are saved. Obviously the latter is not scripturally viable. I maintain that you cannot come to an answer for the questions raised by the former that does not leave God as the determining factor is who is saved and who is not.
But you just said above that man does not have a choice to accept God, but he does have a 'choice' to reject Him? This is the Calvinist redefinition of 'choice' that it consists of doing what one wants to do and not actually having a choice between alternatives (which is the normal usage of the term)
No, that's not what I said. You are falsely assuming that man makes his salvific choice in a vacuum, which is not the case. As the article at the beginning of this thread points out, choice is not made in a vacuum. There is a matter of influence, a matter of desire.
Just for the record, a paradox is a contradiction. In fact, there can be no paradoxes. If you think you have found one, you have made a mistake.
Hank
If God unconditionarly elected one and left the other one not elected, the choice has been made for him.
That is not a paradox, that is simple human language.
God's choice doesn't 'influence' man's choice, (according to Calvinism) it is the choice.
By cognitive ability, I mean that man has no knowledge of God's elective choice. The choice man is responsible for it whether or not to accept Christ, NOT whether or not to go along with God's elective choice. It's not like God chooses you and then tells you about it and you have to decide whether or not to go along with it. And even if it were, you still have to account for what leads to that decision which Arminians have not. It goes right back to the "secret ingredient" in man that causes him to choose or reject Christ.
The issue is not wheather man 'knows' about the choice, the issue is what does the Bible say of it!
The Bible clearly states that God wants all men saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9) and it is man who is rejecting God, not God rejecting man.
It is the preconceived philosophial view of the nature of God's sovereignity (that God would not allow man to resist His will)that forces Calvinism to avoid the statements of clear scripture that speak of God's love and desire for all men to be saved.
Yes, I see a choice being made, which means choosing between alternatives, for or against Christ. >>You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around. Well, then what you are saying is not a choice, at least by man! Notice I said 'proceeding from' not 'made by.' There is a distinct difference.
Well, we set that issue aside. The fact is that man is not making the 'choice' and the 'choice' is only being revealed through him.
That is not a 'choice' by man, but only the seen choice of God.
In both Arminianism and Calvinism man has responsibility for his choice, and it is a valid choice...a choice as you said between two alternatives: accepting Christ or rejecting Him.
Well, here is responsiblity without any ability to decide.
How can one be responsible for that which he is not responsible for!
That choice must proceed from something however...unless you maintain that it's random, in which case it is morally neutral and cannot therefore be justly condemnable.
Now, how did you jump to the issue of it being 'random'?
God foresaw the free choices men would make and factored those choices (choosing between alternatives) and that is why 'man is without excuse'
Romans 1 clearly states that man had the knowledge of God and rejected it.
Man chooses based on desire, unless you believe that there is something within a man that would potentially compel him to choose against his desire (which in turn begs the questions "What is it?" and "Who put it there?").
God placed that 'desire' in man to understand and seek God.
Thus, while man is spiritually dead, he still has a conscience and the glory of God is evident in nature.
Thus, God is seeking man and if man responds to that seeking, God will give him the light of the Gospel (Psa.119:30)
See, what you are starting with is a man in the Fallen state.
How did man get into that state?
Adam had free will and was perfect so what happened?
What happened (according to Calvinism) is that God wanted Adam to fall to put man into a condemned state so that He could save some and condemn the rest.
Thus, according to Calvinism, it is God who is responsible for the state that man is in and not man, and this for 'God's glory'.
It is very nice circuclar reasoning, starting with a philosophical premise of God's Sovereignity, that God cannot handle free will,but must Decree everything from His own directive will.
Calvinists want to put up alot of 'dust' hoping that one does not trace the source back to its origins, but when does, it is God who is responsible for the very thing that He is stating in Scripture that He hates, sin and evil.
Thus, you will use selective proof-texts and ignore clear scripture that contradicts those texts.
Then, as the final defense, it is the secret will and the unknowable God, not the God of the Bible.
So clearly there is some means of external intervention (ie-"prevenient grace"). The question is this: what does that grace do to man's desire? If it brings it to a neutral place, how can man make any decision at all?
Because man has a will and that will can make a decision with the light shown it.
If it takes it from desiring against to desiring for Christ, then that creates a problem for the Arminians who believe that prevenient grace is universally applied.
Why should it?
The Arminians simply state that one can resist that desire as one can any desire.
If an alternative desire is created, then one has a decision between responding to that desire or going back to the old desire.
We make that decision everytime we sin.(Rom.7)
Either some then choose against that desire (which as stated begs other questions that must be answered), or all choose Christ and are saved.
That is exactly what does happen! So how does that 'beg' the question?
The 'will' makes a decision against two desires. Now, because one may make an irrational decision (and choose against Christ) should be not suprise to us, since we do the same when we sin!
Obviously the latter is not scripturally viable.
Oh, no, it is the only viable answer, since it fits scripture, which states that God desires all men to be saved, and it is man that is rejecting God, not God rejecting man (with a pre-eternal uncontitional election)
I maintain that you cannot come to an answer for the questions raised by the former that does not leave God as the determining factor is who is saved and who is not.
I maintain that your argument is not logical but rhetorical.
It does not start with God's revealed attributes, but starts with a preconceived notion of God and then fits certain proof texts to fit that notion of both God and man.
When you push Calvinism to its logical premise, you have an unknown God who is not revealed in Scripture, but contradicts Himself in Scripture.
Calvinism makes Christiantiy all 'smoke and mirrors' and is thus mysticism.
Here is a letter by a former Calvinist in David's Hunts' Berean Call that you might find interesting,
I have read your book, What Love Is This? and enjoyed it very much. I am saddened to see so many write with such disrespect...I was a Calvinist....I thought, 'How can anyone be so stupid as not believe the true doctrines of the Reformed faith? It is so logical; it is so scriptural. 'I was quick to point out people's errors in doctrine'....Ater graduation, a friend challanged me regarding the interpetation of John. 3:16....As I started to open my mouth to give the standard 'clear' interpretation, I stopped. I saw something that I hadn't seen before....I told my friend' give me three days and I'll come and answer you'....For three days I wrestled with the 'standard' interpretation and the plain, normal reading of Scripture....I found that many of the 'standard' Calvinistic interpretations were not according to the plain, normal reading of the text, but understood with special definitions, and lengthy cross references and arguments. Taking Scripture in its plain, normal sense simply could not explain the Calvinistic interpetation....I am no longer a Calvinist. No longer do I want to understand and interpret the Bible using special manmade definitions of words to force peculiar interpetations' (Berean Call-Feb,2003)
Calvinism rejects the basic rules of Biblical interpetation that clear scripture interpret obscure scripture and that scripture cannot contradict scripture.
Thus, when a Calvinist does interpet scripture correctly (see Spurgeon 1Tim.2;4, Calvin,2Pet.3:9) he must resolve the contradiction by appealing to a 'secret will' that explains away what the scripture is clearly teaching.
Thus, you have a faith based on a philosophial premise and not a Biblical one
But you just said above that man does not have a choice to accept God, but he does have a 'choice' to reject Him? This is the Calvinist redefinition of 'choice' that it consists of doing what one wants to do and not actually having a choice between alternatives (which is the normal usage of the term) No, that's not what I said. You are falsely assuming that man makes his salvific choice in a vacuum, which is not the case.
No, the issue was wheather man had a choice (alternatives to choose from) and that Calvinism uses 'double-talk' in its explanation.
With all due respect, you have shown that is exactly what Calvinism does.
You maintain that because you cannot understand how man can make this choice, that it is really God who making the choice for man, but it appeals it is man's choice, so we will consider it as such! LOL!
As the article at the beginning of this thread points out, choice is not made in a vacuum. There is a matter of influence, a matter of desire.
Exactly right, and God has given man a desire for Him, that even with the fall has not been totally removed.
Spiritual death constitutes the fact that man's desire in the flesh is away from God, and hides from God, but the Bible clearly states that God will seek man (as He did with the spirtually dead Adam, who still could talk with God, as he did with the spiritually dead Cain who could talk with God, as He did with Pharoah,(Gen.20) who talked with God)
Your concept of 'spiritual death' is made to fit your preconceived notion of God's sovereignity, and is not scriptural.
God seeks man and God in His omnipotence and wisdom has no problem in giving even spiritually dead men a decision to make.
That is based on clear scripture, not the imagination of the Father of the most mystical system in existance, Roman Catholicism, Augustine, the father also of Calvinism.
I hope the tone of my reponse was respectful and I apologize in advance if I said anything personally offensive.
Just for the record, you better grab your dictionary, Hank.
par·a·dox
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion. ----------------------------------------------------------- Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Well, I won't say it didn't make my blood boil, but it was at least civil ;)
I will respond tomorrow as I have some work to do tonight (RedHat 8, here I come!)
Just for the record, you better grab your dictionary, Hank
Interestingly, I almost captured that same page and quoted it to you.
If a paradox is not a contradiction, then what is it. The whole point of apparent paradoxes are, they seem, or some people are able to believe that two things can be true, which, if true, would contradict each other. That is always what it means. If things only "seem" like contradictions, they are not truly paradoxical. To think they are is just a mistake.
In truth, there can be no contradictions, and no true "paradox," where paradox means, two propositions which are both true and contradict each other.
Most people confuse irony with paradox.
Hank
Jeez, people.... :D
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.