The Free Will Challenge

prophet said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
Someone who originates, causes, or initiates something.

Yes.

The alternative is that God is not all-knowing or sovereign.  In fact, the alternative is that God is a moron.
Or an alternative is that God granted a free-will, so that He could actually be loved by someone who could have chosen not to. 

Anishinaabe

Let's assume that what you say is true.

God:

I think I'll plant a tree with delicious looking fruit in the garden with the humans and then tell them not to eat the fruit.  Then I'll let the father of lies into the garden to deceive them.

Oh My Self!  They ate it!!!  I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!  I never saw that coming!

So is God the author of sin, or not?  I say yes.  It all went according to plan.  They ate of their own will, but they were still fulfilling the will of God. 

And it was a GOOD plan.  It was the only way the objects of his mercy could really get to know God's power, righteousness, wrath, mercy, etc.  He wants us to truly know him. 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
prophet said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
Someone who originates, causes, or initiates something.

Yes.

The alternative is that God is not all-knowing or sovereign.  In fact, the alternative is that God is a moron.
Or an alternative is that God granted a free-will, so that He could actually be loved by someone who could have chosen not to. 

Anishinaabe

Let's assume that what you say is true.

God:

I think I'll plant a tree with delicious looking fruit in the garden with the humans and then tell them not to eat the fruit.  Then I'll let the father of lies into the garden to deceive them.

Oh My Self!  They ate it!!!  I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!  I never saw that coming!

So is God the author of sin, or not?  I say yes.  It all went according to plan.  They ate of their own will, but they were still fulfilling the will of God. 

And it was a GOOD plan.  It was the only way the objects of his mercy could really get to know God's power, righteousness, wrath, mercy, etc.  He wants us to truly know him.
His 'plan A' was to enjoy perfect fellowship with Adam forever.  His plan B, because of His foreknowledge, was put into place before plan A began.

Anishinabe

 
prophet said:
His 'plan A' was to enjoy perfect fellowship with Adam forever.  His plan B, because of His foreknowledge, was put into place before plan A began.

Anishinabe

I don't buy that.  Plan A was exactly what happened, and I repeat, it was an excellent plan.  It achieved exactly what he wanted to achieve. 
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
prophet said:
His 'plan A' was to enjoy perfect fellowship with Adam forever.  His plan B, because of His foreknowledge, was put into place before plan A began.

Anishinabe

I don't buy that.  Plan A was exactly what happened, and I repeat, it was an excellent plan.  It achieved exactly what he wanted to achieve.
So God was lying to Himself in Gen. 3:22?

Anishinabe

 
prophet said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
prophet said:
His 'plan A' was to enjoy perfect fellowship with Adam forever.  His plan B, because of His foreknowledge, was put into place before plan A began.

Anishinabe

I don't buy that.  Plan A was exactly what happened, and I repeat, it was an excellent plan.  It achieved exactly what he wanted to achieve.
So God was lying to Himself in Gen. 3:22?

Anishinabe

I don't follow you.
 
"Wow! I didn't see that coming!" -

Said God never.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
Someone who originates, causes, or initiates something.

Yes.

The alternative is that God is not all-knowing or sovereign.  In fact, the alternative is that God is a moron.

Well, the other alternative is that we simply can't understand such things and we should just love, serve and fear God until we are made perfect in Heaven and perhaps then understand. In other words, their is an answer far removed from anything we think we know.
 
.tim said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
Someone who originates, causes, or initiates something.

Yes.

The alternative is that God is not all-knowing or sovereign.  In fact, the alternative is that God is a moron.

Well, the other alternative is that we simply can't understand such things and we should just love, serve and fear God until we are made perfect in Heaven and perhaps then understand. In other words, their is an answer far removed from anything we think we know.

You know.... its pretty silly to think that God's Sovereignty demands that He be the originator/responsible party..... of all things. God sets limits. He defines boundaries. With in those boundaries, man has control to move and act under his own power..... and "ORIGINATE" many things after his own desire. This does not preclude the "sovereignty of God".
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
If you truly have free will, then you should be able to accept and complete this challenge:

Exercise your will to never again commit a sin of thought or deed. 

Let me know how you do. 

I bet half of you failed simply by your reaction to reading this challenge. ;)

This is absurd. I'm likely a Calvinist but your challenge is akin to saying  "Exercise your free will to sprout a tail and some wings."
 
Darkwing Duck said:
This is absurd. I'm likely a Calvinist but your challenge is akin to saying  "Exercise your free will to sprout a tail and some wings."

Precisely the point.
 
Ransom said:
Darkwing Duck said:
This is absurd. I'm likely a Calvinist but your challenge is akin to saying  "Exercise your free will to sprout a tail and some wings."

Precisely the point.

You're requiring that "freewill" empower man to do anything. It doesn't. This doesn't mean that man can't have the freewill to operate within his own power. Freewill has never meant that man is omnipotent. Don't be dishonest in confusing the two.
 
christundivided said:
You're requiring that "freewill" empower man to do anything.

What are you blabbering about now? I'm not "requiring" anything. I'm only saying that Darkwing grasped the point of the OP. If you want to grouse, grouse at the Rogue Tomato.
 
Apparently Ransom is suggesting that Rogue Tomato thinks Arminians think they are superhumans. I think this is a mischaracterization of their views.

Even Calvinists believe in free will. After all, murderers are responsible for their crimes.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Even Calvinists believe in free will. After all, murderers are responsible for their crimes.

Because when Calvinists say the will is not free, they don't mean that people's choices are coerced. As Jonathan Edwards put it, to paraphrase loosely, everyone chooses what they think best at the time.

When we say that the will is not free, we mean that it is bound by human nature and not autonomous. A sinful human being in a state of rebellion against God will not freely choose to please him - not because the man is a robot, but because God is his enemy.
 
Ransom said:
christundivided said:
You're requiring that "freewill" empower man to do anything.

What are you blabbering about now? I'm not "requiring" anything. I'm only saying that Darkwing grasped the point of the OP. If you want to grouse, grouse at the Rogue Tomato.

Pardon me for misunderstanding your short response. There really isn't any way I could have taken it differently.... I'm SOOOOO embarrassed....  :eek:
 
Ransom said:
Darkwing Duck said:
Even Calvinists believe in free will. After all, murderers are responsible for their crimes.

Because when Calvinists say the will is not free, they don't mean that people's choices are coerced. As Jonathan Edwards put it, to paraphrase loosely, everyone chooses what they think best at the time.

When we say that the will is not free, we mean that it is bound by human nature and not autonomous. A sinful human being in a state of rebellion against God will not freely choose to please him - not because the man is a robot, but because God is his enemy.

Rubbish... Entirely RUBBISH.

You have got to admire the spin on this response from Ran... some.... He must be tired from his exercise.

He is ignore what a Calvinist believes about predetermination. A Calvinist loves to pretend nothing they believe actually "touches" each another... or "influence" each another. It impossible to reconcile what he said with what he believes about predetermination and election. Impossible.

This one of the reasons that Calvin so hated Servetus. Servetus loved to call Calvin on his inept defense of his beliefs. I certainly don't agree with much of anything Servetus wrote, but he wasn't the idiot John Calvin proved to be.

Even Edwards fell into the trap of presupposing the Determination of the Will. It is core of Edwards treatise on Free Will. He seeks to oversimplifying the intrinsic qualities of freewill to be nothing more than being similar to a child throwing a ball down a hill. (my words).

 
Ransom said:
Darkwing Duck said:
Even Calvinists believe in free will. After all, murderers are responsible for their crimes.

Because when Calvinists say the will is not free, they don't mean that people's choices are coerced. As Jonathan Edwards put it, to paraphrase loosely, everyone chooses what they think best at the time.

When we say that the will is not free, we mean that it is bound by human nature and not autonomous. A sinful human being in a state of rebellion against God will not freely choose to please him - not because the man is a robot, but because God is his enemy.

I don't think we can dogmatically charge all natural men with "God is your enemy," not in the context Free Will is usually placed. It is true that God is their enemy in the sense that the natural man is at enmity with God, but, just as they do not have the ability to understand the spiritual things of God, even so, the gods men do view as enemies are not necessarily God. This is a self imposed enmity (on their part) based on the knowledge they have acquired within their lifetime. For example, a Hindu may determine Allah is his enemy, but this has nothing to do with God's relationship to that man. 

And we would have to conclude that God did not so love the world, if in fact hatred were an aspect of God's perspective on humanity. And this brings us to the solution to the Free Will Debate: God ministers to unbelievers because of His love for mankind, and it is my view that He provides opportunity to all men, in every Age, to be recipients of His grace. In the Old Testament God did not exact the penalty for sin, but, because of the grace shown to men, provided a temporary means by which they could, instead of dying for their sin, have an animal die in their place. And because of His love for the world, the Son of God manifest ed in flesh among men and Personally died in their stead.

But we're not done yet, and this is the solution to the centuries old debate: in this Age the Holy Spirit Ministers in the capacity of the Role of Comforter, and brings conviction of sin on unbelievers. It is within this ministry that the natural man, who may have been told before he was in a lost condition, acknowledges that truth and either receives or rejects the remedy, which is faith in Christ's Atoning Work.



John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


Isn't that the simple solution? It maintains both the fact that man has no capacity to understand the Gospel (which by the way heads the list of the spiritual things of God), as well as the fact that a decision for Christ is made.  No need to think God has provided grace to men to believe, and no need to think men must be regenerate in order to place faith in Christ. If the latter were true, then we also must affirm loss of salvation, because there are several passages where men who have received the truth are without question hostile to the Truth. But we can't do that, because Scripture makes it absolutely clear that Salvation in Christ is Everlasting.

God bless.
 
According to scripture God works in people to will and do of His good pleasure. This includes Kings and those in authority too. You base every choice you make on a reason God sends to control you.
“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13 (KJV 1900)

“The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever he will.” Proverbs 21:1 (KJV 1900)

“O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Jeremiah 10:23 (KJV 1900)

etc., etc.
 
Conversation between Charles Simeon, a Puritan, and Welsey, an Arminian.
Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?
Yes, I do indeed.
And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.
Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?
Yes, altogether.
And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.
Both are positions that can be backed by Scripture...and the debate will NEVER be settled in this world. Maybe in the next. It's sort of stupid to argue positions that both have Scriptural backing. If a person is saved and knows it, that's all that matters....PERIOD!
 
Top