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.
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!)
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.