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.