The nature of human free will

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.

Well, here is responsiblity without any ability to decide. How can one be responsible for that which he is not responsible for!

You are drawing a false conclusion. You assume that since the same decision is made every time there was no real decision in the first place. If I always choose Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream over any other flavor, does that mean I was not really presented with a choice in the first place?

Now, how did you jump to the issue of it being 'random'?

Did you actually read the article above? See paragraph 3.

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.

You still have not accounted for the point being raised in the article. What motivates, causes or leads to man's choice?

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!

And once again, you have not gone the next step to ask what makes one person make an irrational decision while another makes a rational one?

I'm going to assume that you misread the latter half of that statement because I know you are not a universalist.

Ahh, yes...the old proof-texting argument again. Talk about rhetoric. When you push Arminianism to its logical premise...you have a God who is not omniscient, not omnipotent and not just. Now see, doesn't that add a lot to this argument? :D

And thanks for posting that little excerpt which has nothing to do with the article I posted. I'm sure I could find a dozen more from former Arminians, which again would add so much weight to my argument </sarcasm>

Calvinism rejects the basic rules of Biblical interpetation that clear scripture interpret obscure scripture and that scripture cannot contradict scripture.

Right...just like Romans 8, Ephesians 1, and John 6.

And you still cannot explain at all why, if the effect of the Fall is somehow miraculously removed before all people by 'prevenient grace,' some choose and some reject. You can't point to anything...just this vague notion of free will than you still can't even define to a logical satisfaction. But I'm the mystical one because I maintain that God chooses whom He will and that just because we're not privi to His reasoning behind His choice doesn't mean it's capricious or arbitrary. You somehow demand full disclosure from God.

Your concept of 'spiritual death' is made to fit your preconceived notion of God's sovereignity, and is not scriptural.

I thought your pefect King James Authorized Version wasn't missing anything. Clearly it is if you stand by the statement you just made.

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.

Yes, thank God for Arminius and Wesley, who pulled the church of Jesus Christ out of the apostasy that began shortly after the ascension. Oh wait...that was Joseph Smith...

Now, if it's all the same to you, I'd like to return to the initial point of this thread, which is to discuss the nature of man's 'free will.' I would like your definition of 'free will' and an explanation of how man makes choices.

Well, here is responsiblity without any ability to decide. How can one be responsible for that which he is not responsible for! You are drawing a false conclusion. You assume that since the same decision is made every time there was no real decision in the first place. If I always choose Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream over any other flavor, does that mean I was not really presented with a choice in the first place?

No, I am not 'assuming' that.

What I am 'assuming' is that (according to Calvinism) the 'choice' of what 'ice cream' flavor has already been made for the individual.

The individual only thinks it is his choice.

Ofcourse, God and the Calvinists know otherwise.

Now, how did you jump to the issue of it being 'random'? Did you actually read the article above? See paragraph 3. 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. You still have not accounted for the point being raised in the article. What motivates, causes or leads to man's choice?

I have said a number of times, it is the will that makes a choice between various desires (ice cream vs cake etc)

Sometimes those decisions might be viewed as 'irrational' or 'short-termed', they are nevertheless real choices between two alternatives.

A 'person' by definition is someone who has 'intellect, sensibility and will'

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! And once again, you have not gone the next step to ask what makes one person make an irrational decision while another makes a rational one?

That is the individual will deciding between alternatives.

How the individual views those decisions (ice cream vs cake) is based on a varied combination of choices.

No decision is made in a vacuum.

Good choices lead to other good choices, likewise bad choices lead to other bad choices. That is how 'habits' are formed, good and bad, choosing to do something over and over until you no longer even give it a thought, it becomes impulsive.

The chain is very difficult to break.

It can be broken however, as we see good men go bad and bad men become good. (Demas and Mannasah)

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'm going to assume that you misread the latter half of that statement because I know you are not a universalist.

And what part do you think a misread?

God does want all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9)

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. Ahh, yes...the old proof-texting argument again. Talk about rhetoric. When you push Arminianism to its logical premise...you have a God who is not omniscient, not omnipotent and not just. Now see, doesn't that add a lot to this argument? :D

I have not seen that done yet. I have seen a lot of straw man arguments against Arminians, but according to what both Arminus and Wesley actually taught (both believing in God's control of history), the Arminians/Wesley/Baptist view is based on clear scripture, that God loves His creation and has allowed rational creatures to make irrational decisions against Him, just as we do when we sin.

No, the point was that the individual saw that the scripture twisting and redefining of terms was not Biblical.

When you have to figure a way to explain away Jn.3:16 your system is in big trouble!

Calvinism rejects the basic rules of Biblical interpetation that clear scripture interpret obscure scripture and that scripture cannot contradict scripture. Right...just like Romans 8, Ephesians 1, and John 6.

In Rom.8 I see foreknowledge preceding Predestination. After John 6, I see Christ saying in John 12 that He will draw all men to Him. In Eph.1:4 I see someone predestinated who is in Christ.

You do not get into Christ except by faith (Eph.2:8-)

I do see Rom.5:18 left unanswered. Along with 1Tim.2:4, 4:10, Acts.17:30, Heb.2:9, 1Jn.2:2, 2Pet.2:1, Isa.53:6, Heb.10:39, Ezek.33:11 etc.

Your 'proof-texts' can be handled quite easily, but in order for the Calvinists to deal with those above, they have to either twist them, or appeal to a 'secret will'

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! And you still cannot explain at all why, if the effect of the Fall is somehow miraculously removed before all people by 'prevenient grace,' some choose and some reject. You can't point to anything...just this vague notion of free will than you still can't even define to a logical satisfaction. But I'm the mystical one because I maintain that God chooses whom He will and that just because we're not privi to His reasoning behind His choice doesn't mean it's capricious or arbitrary. You somehow demand full disclosure from God.

It is you are demanding 'full understanding'

You want an explaination of the 'irrational', which cannot be made, except that man wanted to do it!

The will makes a choice between various desires and weighs them and decides based on different prefences.

This is why some people spend all the money they make and some others invest and save it.

Many different motives can go into the same action.

So, when you sin, you have to choose to do so (1Cor.10:13) and thus, 'grieve and quench' the Holy Spirit.

So, is your 'choice' involved or did God want you to sin?

Sin is irrational, but it nevertheless is a choice that Christians still make after being saved.

Now, we have the Holy Spirit in us and yet, we can still resist that power.

Now, is it God willing you to do it?

In Romans 7, Paul makes it very clear that it is a war that goes on between desires and it is the will that chooses between them.

If we have made constant bad decisions for sin, our will is very weak, if good ones it is strong.

However, even strong believers (like David and Peter) can still fall into sin, through giving into their desires, an act of the will.

Your concept of 'spiritual death' is made to fit your preconceived notion of God's sovereignity, and is not scriptural. I thought your pefect King James Authorized Version wasn't missing anything. Clearly it is if you stand by the statement you just made.

A very obtuse statement.

Physical death is separation of soul and spirit from the body, spiritual death is the separation of soul and spirit from God and second death is the final and permanent form of spiritual death if the individual has not been saved from that. (Chafer, Systematic Theology, Doctrinal Summarization) So, what is the problem?

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. Yes, thank God for Arminius and Wesley, who pulled the church of Jesus Christ out of the apostasy that began shortly after the ascension. Oh wait...that was Joseph Smith...

I will thank God for those men before (1-3 centuries) Augustine who did not teach such nonsense that one is elected by God and the rest are damned.

I will thank God for men like Arminus and Wesley who stood for the truth against a system that would make God a liar in His scriptures (He doesn't really love all mankind, and doesn't really want them saved, He was 'just kidding' when He said it)

Fine, the final decider is the will of man.

Man's will is subject to varying factors which it must weigh and finally make a decision.

That decision is a real choice that it makes.

In the spiritual realm, it is first, to respond to God's call to all men (1Tim.4:10, Acts.17:30) by accepting the free gift of salvation (Rom.6:23)

If that is done and the individual becomes saved, then the issue becomes the Christian walk, which means more decisions have to made regarding the Christian life.

Here the will again comes into play, either giving power to the Old Sin Nature and living in sin or giving power to the residing Holy Spirit and letting Him control your life (Phil.2:12-13, Eph.4:30, 1Thess. 5:19)

Now, we do not always choose for God despite the residence of God in us.(1Jn.1:8)

So, either those choices are ours (irrational as they are, since sin is irrational) or they are really God's, who really wants us to sin for His glory (Rom.6:1-2)

So, you explain to me why we still sin.

The one thing you and most Arminians continually gloss over in this whole discussion is the whole question of whether sin is something a man DOES or is is it something that he is incapable of NOT doing. Arminians tend to downplay the total depravity of man after the Fall. A sinful man can do nothing but sin. Scripture states that the plowing of the wicked is sin. Since when is plowing a field a sinful act? Scripture ties the act to the one who commits it, and declares both to be sinful. The sinner sins, the righteous do righteousness. Each acts according to his nature. It is the nature of fallen man to sin, no matter what he does. He can freely choose to do whatever he will, but if he is a sinner, his actions are sin. At the heart of every one of them will be selfish intent, self-appeasement or self-aggrandizement. Every time. Therefore, Fallen Man is incapable of choosing God, even if he knows God exists and has a right to be worshipped.

You argue for choice with no limitations. Every choice is limited, by what is, what can be, and what is available. There is no such thing as truly free and unfettered choice. Alternatives imply limitations by the word's very meaning. One cannot choose that which is not possible. One can wish for it, conceive of it, think about it, but if they cannot actually choose it, it is no choice. Certain choices render other choices unavailable. The fact of the matter is, because of Adam's poor choice, all mankind is limited as to what they can choose. That's why God must choose whom He will save, because if God didn't choose, all would perish, because of Adam's poor choice. We were in Adam at the time he chose, therefore we suffer the consequences of that choice.

That is the beauty of Christ's redemptive work. When God chooses us and we respond, we are in Christ, the same way we were in Adam, and therefore partakers of the blessings of Christ the same way we partook of the curse of Adam. It is not a "representative" joining, as some would teach, but an "actual" joining. That is the significance of Christ being the Second Adam.

The depths of depravity and sin are glossed over by Arminians. To them, sin is only what someone does, and habitual sin is what makes man a sinner, not the circumstances of his birth. That's why they think that man can freely choose God as easily as he chooses sin. They make the choice for God the moral equivalent of any other choice, rather than accept the fact that the choice for God is not available to them until and unless God first chooses them. The scream it's not fair when presented with the fact that they cannot choose God apart from His choosing them, ignoring the fact that apart from God's choosing, no one wants to choose God (the Book of Romans goes into great detail about that). Yet they will charge God with unfairness if they can't choose God, even though that choice is not available to them apart from God. At the heart of this is the idea that man has some sort of redeeming worth that would cause God to choose any particular individual. There is none, and they don't like it. But that doesn't make God unfair, nor does it make His choice arbitrary. It is totally within God's power to choose whom He will, and to not choose whom He will.

No one underestimates the depravity of man, both Arminius and Wesley were strong in making it clear that man was helpless in his own salvation.

However, that does not mean that man cannot make a choice, once God seeks him, and man is able to make that choice because God gave him that ability.

Finally, if it is only an issue of 'natures', then why do you and I, with our 'new' natures continue to sin?

You argue for choice with no limitations.

Now, where did I ever say that!

That is they typical Calvinistic straw man that must be placed in every discussion.

All choices are limited, but that does not mean that they are not still choices even if limited to only two alternatives!

Every choice is limited, by what is, what can be, and what is available. There is no such thing as truly free and unfettered choice. Alternatives imply limitations by the word's very meaning. One cannot choose that which is not possible. One can wish for it, conceive of it, think about it, but if they cannot actually choose it, it is no choice. Certain choices render other choices unavailable. The fact of the matter is, because of Adam's poor choice, all mankind is limited as to what they can choose.

Did Adam make a 'choice'?

Not according to Calvinism he didn't, he was predestinated to make that 'choice' so it was not really a choice.

That's why God must choose whom He will save, because if God didn't choose, all would perish, because of Adam's poor choice. We were in Adam at the time he chose, therefore we suffer the consequences of that choice.

Even if all that were true, the fact is that Romans 5 makes it very clear that we are dead in Adam but all savable by the Second Adam (Rom.5:18)

That is the beauty of Christ's redemptive work. When God chooses us and we respond, we are in Christ, the same way we were in Adam, and therefore partakers of the blessings of Christ the same way we partook of the curse of Adam. It is not a "representative" joining, as some would teach, but an "actual" joining. That is the significance of Christ being the Second Adam.

The 'significance' of Christ being the Second Adam, is that Grace had 'trumped' sin and everyone is savable because of what the Second Adam did, just as everyone was damned for what the first Adam did.

The depths of depravity and sin are glossed over by Arminians. To them, sin is only what someone does, and habitual sin is what makes man a sinner, not the circumstances of his birth. That's why they think that man can freely choose God as easily as he chooses sin. They make the choice for God the moral equivalent of any other choice, rather than accept the fact that the choice for God is not available to them until and unless God first chooses them. The scream it's not fair when presented with the fact that they cannot choose God apart from His choosing them, ignoring the fact that apart from God's choosing, no one wants to choose God (the Book of Romans goes into great detail about that). Yet they will charge God with unfairness if they can't choose God, even though that choice is not available to them apart from God. At the heart of this is the idea that man has some sort of redeeming worth that would cause God to choose any particular individual. There is none, and they don't like it. But that doesn't make God unfair, nor does it make His choice arbitrary. It is totally within God's power to choose whom He will, and to not choose whom He will.

We are not talking about what it is in God's power to do, we are dealing with what He says in Scripture He wants to do, that is save all men!(1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9, Jn.3:16, Acts.17:30.

Thank you for the post.

I have said a number of times, it is the will that makes a choice between various desires (ice cream vs cake etc)

But what is implied is that the desires are equal and without individual merit. You're playing the argument about regarding the neutral-willed mule. If the desires are equal WHAT LEADS TO THE CHOICE?!?

All true...however you STILL have not shown how those decisions come about. There are two possibilities as to why the will would choose one alternative and not the other: it is a random decision without any motiviation, or it is a prior inclination. In the case of the former, as I've stated several times, the decision is morally neutral...not one of preference and not one that could be justly condemned. In the case of the latter, we must ask the question, "Where did the prior inclination come from?" If, as you say, it is mere habit, it still must have a point of origination. The inclination toward one or the other is dictated by desire, dec.

And what part do you think a misread? God does want all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9)

My original statement was "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 all don't choose Christ (which would lead to universal salvation) and I've never seen any indication that you believe such, so like I said I think you just misread what I wrote.

Straw man arguments come in two flavors: intentional and unintentional. The intentional ones stem from intellectual dishonesty, the unintentional from a lack of understanding the original position. I think the latter are mischaracterized as the former a little too often, much to the detriment of civil conversation. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt:)

Your 'proof-texts' can be handled quite easily, but in order for the Calvinists to deal with those above, they have to either twist them, or appeal to a 'secret will'

That's funny...we Calvinists look at your proof-texts the same way:) This particular thread wasn't intended to continue the same old debate over those select texts pointed to by both sides, so I'm not going to go over that ground again, at least not until we've gotten through the issue at hand.

And this is what kills me about the argument, dec! If I'm demanding to know why a man chooses the way he does, I'm unreasonable. I'm just supposed to accept that some choose one way and some another without thought to where that motivation originated. But when I take the same approach with God...when I accept that He chooses to elect some according to His own choices/desires/etc...I'm again being unreasonable?!? Regarding the above statements, you still haven't/cannot answer a) WHY man wanted to do it, b) HOW those 'different preferences' came about, or c) where those different motives originated. As created beings these are essential points!

Fine, the final decider is the will of man. Man's will is subject to varying factors which it must weigh and finally make a decision. That decision is a real choice that it makes.

Ok. Now to what types of 'factors' are you referring?

I'll have to address the rest later...time to head out of here...

have said a number of times, it is the will that makes a choice between various desires (ice cream vs cake etc) But what is implied is that the desires are equal and without individual merit. You're playing the argument about regarding the neutral-willed mule. If the desires are equal WHAT LEADS TO THE CHOICE?!?

Now, what makes you think that the desire are equal!

But even if they were, the mind would make one or the other have a heavier weight, adding other factors.

For example, in the ice cream issue, you might like both flavors, but are trying to lose weight so pick the one with fewer calories.

That is the individual will deciding between alternatives. How the individual views those decisions (ice cream vs cake) is based on a varied combination of choices. No decision is made in a vacuum. Good choices lead to other good choices, likewise bad choices lead to other bad choices. That is how 'habits' are formed, good and bad, choosing to do something over and over until you no longer even give it a thought, it becomes impulsive. The chain is very difficult to break. It can be broken however, as we see good men go bad and bad men become good. (Demas and Mannasah) All true...however you STILL have not shown how those decisions come about. There are two possibilities as to why the will would choose one alternative and not the other: it is a random decision without any motiviation, or it is a prior inclination.

First, the idea that the decision is random is a non-starter, I do not know anyone who is defending that view.

a prior inclination is a big factor, as I stated before, but it can be resisted and changed.

In the case of the former, as I've stated several times, the decision is morally neutral...not one of preference and not one that could be justly condemned. In the case of the latter, we must ask the question, "Where did the prior inclination come from?" If, as you say, it is mere habit, it still must have a point of origination. The inclination toward one or the other is dictated by desire, dec.

I will grant that sin goes back to the beginning, but we still do resist sin since most of us do not do all the sin we are capable of doing.

That is why in Romans 1 we are held accountable because we have a conscience and do know right and wrong.

And what part do you think a misread? God does want all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9) My original statement was "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 all don't choose Christ (which would lead to universal salvation) and I've never seen any indication that you believe such, so like I said I think you just misread what I wrote.

No, you framed that question wrongly.

All those who are condemned do choose against God, choosing to follow another desire (Jn.3:19) over the desire for God (Psa.10)

I have not seen that done yet. I have seen a lot of straw man arguments against Arminians, but according to what both Arminus and Wesley actually taught (both believing in God's control of history), the Arminians/Wesley/Baptist view is based on clear scripture, that God loves His creation and has allowed rational creatures to make irrational decisions against Him, just as we do when we sin. Straw man arguments come in two flavors: intentional and unintentional. The intentional ones stem from intellectual dishonesty, the unintentional from a lack of understanding the original position. I think the latter are mischaracterized as the former a little too often, much to the detriment of civil conversation. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt:)

Thank you.

Your 'proof-texts' can be handled quite easily, but in order for the Calvinists to deal with those above, they have to either twist them, or appeal to a 'secret will' That's funny...we Calvinists look at your proof-texts the same way:) This particular thread wasn't intended to continue the same old debate over those select texts pointed to by both sides, so I'm not going to go over that ground again, at least not until we've gotten through the issue at hand.

I never saw an Arminian appeal to a 'secret will'!

It is you are demanding 'full understanding' You want an explaination of the 'irrational', which cannot be made, except that man wanted to do it! The will makes a choice between various desires and weighs them and decides based on different prefences. This is why some people spend all the money they make and some others invest and save it. Many different motives can go into the same action. And this is what kills me about the argument, dec! If I'm demanding to know why a man chooses the way he does, I'm unreasonable. I'm just supposed to accept that some choose one way and some another without thought to where that motivation originated. But when I take the same approach with God...when I accept that He chooses to elect some according to His own choices/desires/etc...I'm again being unreasonable?!?

Yes, because you want us to think that it is still man who is choosing!

That is what the issue is really about, who is doing the choosing.

Now, according to your view, man is choosing since he is acting according to how he wants, yet it is really God who is 'pulling the strings' so to speak.

Still, despite that, man is to be held responsible for something he has no control of.

Now, as for my positon, the choices a man makes are based on a mydrid of factors with the final decider being his own will which judges all the factors and makes a decision.

It is his decision to make, based on evalution of the facts

Regarding the above statements, you still haven't/cannot answer a) WHY man wanted to do it, b) HOW those 'different preferences' came about, or c) where those different motives originated. As created beings these are essential points!

The Bible is very clear that God is not responsible for sin (James 1:13) yet, we still do so!

So, when we are tempted, we give into our lust and it conceives sin, we make a decision based on a desire of our Flesh, and have to resist the desire of the Holy Spirit who'lusteth against the flesh' (Gal.5:17).

Now, either God is lying and He does want you to sin, or it is your own will that is making the decision to sin and choose against God!

Fine, the final decider is the will of man. Man's will is subject to varying factors which it must weigh and finally make a decision. That decision is a real choice that it makes. Ok. Now to what types of 'factors' are you referring?

There are many factors which influence choices, both physical and cultural.

Yet these only influence the choices, they are not their determinates, the will is.

Now, what makes you think that the desire are equal! But even if they were, the mind would make one or the other have a heavier weight, adding other factors. Adding other external factors? I want to be clear on this. Do you think that external factors, such as childhood experience, church experience, emotional problems, substance abuse, etc. influence man's salvific decision at all?

Adding all kinds of factors, including evaluation of those various factors, both external and internal.

I know that the will makes the decision, I'm just trying to understand what you think that decision is derived from.

As Thiessen states,

Man's part and God's part seem to be brought together in Jn.1:12-13...Man has the grace to accept Him or reject Him ....God's grace enables man to accept Christ, but it does not constrain man to accept Christ.... As a man shows the least willingless to obey God, He gives man repentence and faith. Jesus asked the man with the withered hand to stretch it forth; and as he attempted to do that which Christ asked him to do, he received the power to do it (Matt.12:13). This view of the will upholds the soverignity of God, and the same time leaves a man personally responsible creature for his perdition,if he does not 'will to do his will' (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p.231)

Thus, the content of the 'will' is the persons own view of reality and truth, he must want the truth, which is what the laws of Nature are suppose to lead one to. (Psa.19, Rom.1).

I never saw an Arminian appeal to a 'secret will'! You've appealed to one in just about every post. You just don't see it for what it is. That's what I'm trying to get at:)

No, an evaulation of reality by an individual who God has given a will to, a will strong enough to reject Him, despite grace, is not a 'secret will' but one that the Bible constantly makes reference to, (Ps.10, Rom.10:21, Acts 7:51, Matt.23:37)

Or, those 'will's weren't really resisting God, He just said that! :>)

Now, according to your view, man is choosing since he is acting according to how he wants, yet it is really God who is 'pulling the strings' so to speak. Still, despite that, man is to be held responsible for something he has no control of. WRONG! Man is condemned for his sinfulness. This is his state BY DEFAULT. He is incapable of not sinning. Man is not condemned because he didn't make some one-time choice the right way. He's born already condemned!

Read Rom.5:18 and tell me how that condemnation was handled.

Now the only thing that keeps a man out of heaven is rejection of God by not accepting the free gift by faith (Jn.14:6)

Moreover, no one denies that all men deserve death, however, the question is why some are saved when all could be saved but aren't (despite what God states in Scripture).

This is what makes the Calvinists run to the Secret Will, the Scriptures!

Now, as for my positon, the choices a man makes are based on a mydrid of factors with the final decider being his own will which judges all the factors and makes a decision. It is his decision to make, based on evalution of the facts. So, does everyone receive all the facts they need? And if so, again why do some not come to the correct conclusion?

Yes, all do receive enough revelation to make fair choice to have desire to know God, even though they must wait for God to reveal Himself to them.

Some come to correct conclusions because they see the truth as the truth.

Thus, if one wants to know the truth, God will get it to him.

If he for his own reasons, does not want to know God (Ps.10) God will not force Himself on him.

There are many factors which influence choices, both physical and cultural. Yet these only influence the choices, they are not their determinates, the will is. If they do not affect the outcome, then they do not influence. Period.

No, an influence is just a power, one that can be resisted if one is influenced by something else.

Thus, our flesh is one influence, while the Power of the Holy Spirit is another.

Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other, which is decided by our own will choosing between the two.

So, let us get to the nitty-gritty, when you sin, whose will are you doing, God's or your own?

No one underestimates the depravity of man, both Arminius and Wesley were strong in making it clear that man was helpless in his own salvation. However, that does not mean that man cannot make a choice, once God seeks him, and man is able to make that choice because God gave him that ability. Thank you for stating that. Most Arminians don't, in the many, many posts I've seen. The question is, when did God give man that ability? Was it there all along, or was the ability given when God called him? That is important. As I see it, Arminians argue for man having that ability to choose God without regard to God's Election or calling. I believe that man cannot choose God UNLESS God first chooses him.

God must initiate the grace.

Both Wesley and Arminus held that.

The only difference is that they believed that one could say 'no' to the call and reject it.

It was the Pelegians who stated that man could move towards God under some system of works.

All choices are limited, but that does not mean that they are not still choices even if limited to only two alternatives! Yes, but the Arminians I've encountered set up a hue and cry the moment I, or any other Calvinist, states that for the sinner, the alternatives are not to choose or reject God. Without God having first chosen the sinner and opening his eyes and ears to the Gospel, the sinner cannot choose God, nor does he want to. That is the heart of the matter. Choosing God is not one of the alternatives for him.

Choosing God is not an alternative for Him until God gives Him light and shows him the alternatives between darkness and light.

Thus, at that point, man can reject the call of the Holy Spirit, who is shedding light into the soul, the entrance of thy word giveth light...(Psa.119:30)

Even if all that were true, the fact is that Romans 5 makes it very clear that we are dead in Adam but all savable by the Second Adam (Rom.5:18) What do you mean,"even if all that were true"...of course it's true! It's God's Word! Jesus' work on the cross is sufficient for all whom God calls.

Yes, and God calls all men to Him (Jn.12:32)

It is efficacious only for those whom God calls. Show me where it says any different.

Jn.3:16, Rom.5:18, 1Jn.2:2, Heb.2:9 are passages that show that all men are savable because Christ died for all men.

1Tim.2:4 and 2Pet.3:9 show that God wants all men to be saved, Jn.3:39 and Rom.1:21 shows why those who Christ died for aren't saved.

'ye would not' (Matt.23:37)

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.