The Free Will Challenge

Baptist Renegade said:
Non-Cals are quite funny how they complain that God won't allow people to have a free will in order to "Choose Christ" but then they complain when God gives them a free will in order to "Choose to sin!"

I say that man has a completely free will but with that FREE WILL, he will FREELY choose to run from God and remain in darkness.
Click to expand...
Yet, in defending their point of view they freely admit that there is an illumination (not necessarily a regeneration as some are illuminated by still choose the darkness) through the preaching of the word, or through the reading of the scriptures. This still, in their thoughts, doesn't equate to "irresistible grace."
 
AverageJoe said:
Yet, in defending their point of view they freely admit that there is an illumination (not necessarily a regeneration as some are illuminated by still choose the darkness) through the preaching of the word, or through the reading of the scriptures. This still, in their thoughts, doesn't equate to "irresistible grace."
Click to expand...
I believe what you are speaking of here is the Arminian position of "Prevenient Grace" which I believe has some merit although not all Arminians share the same definition. Those I somewhat agree with the most say that God gives "Illumination" for a season which makes them "Receptive" and able to consider and "choose" salvation. I'm sure you have experienced working with someone who seems "Receptive" for a while who then become cold and resolute in their rejection of the gospel. Some may even make a "Profession" albeit one where the seed fell on thorns or on stony ground and they "Talk the talk" for a while but ultimately fall away repudiating the faith they once professed to have.

It should also be clear that not everyone receives such "grace." There are many who live and die and are never receptive to the Gospel. There are also those who never even hear the Gospel! So are you ready to admit that God elects those to whom he bestows prevenient grace?

Some equate prevenient grace with efficacious grace which is very much erroneous. Efficacious grace is saving grace. It is regeneration whereby one passes from death to life. It is what Calvinists refer to as "Irresistible Grace" and without it, salvation is not possible.

Prevenient Grace is therefore more in line with the "Common Grace" that God gives to every man whereby he is revealed in his creation, in the conscience of man, according to the goodness and blessings bestowed upon him, and by whatever witness of the Gospel he may have received. Every man will stand accountable before God regarding the measure of grace they have received and they which have received most abundantly shall have the greater condemnation!
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I believe what you are speaking of here is the Arminian position of "Prevenient Grace" which I believe has some merit although not all Arminians share the same definition. Those I somewhat agree with the most say that God gives "Illumination" for a season which makes them "Receptive" and able to consider and "choose" salvation. I'm sure you have experienced working with someone who seems "Receptive" for a while who then become cold and resolute in their rejection of the gospel. Some may even make a "Profession" albeit one where the seed fell on thorns or on stony ground and they "Talk the talk" for a while but ultimately fall away repudiating the faith they once professed to have.

It should also be clear that not everyone receives such "grace." There are many who live and die and are never receptive to the Gospel. There are also those who never even hear the Gospel! So are you ready to admit that God elects those to whom he bestows prevenient grace?

Some equate prevenient grace with efficacious grace which is very much erroneous. Efficacious grace is saving grace. It is regeneration whereby one passes from death to life. It is what Calvinists refer to as "Irresistible Grace" and without it, salvation is not possible.

Prevenient Grace is therefore more in line with the "Common Grace" that God gives to every man whereby he is revealed in his creation, in the conscience of man, according to the goodness and blessings bestowed upon him, and by whatever witness of the Gospel he may have received. Every man will stand accountable before God regarding the measure of grace they have received and they which have received most abundantly shall have the greater condemnation!
Click to expand...
Ah, an attempt to draw a confession out of me on which position, if any, I choose. LOL As my great-grandfather used to say...."Ain't gonna do it!" ;) I know many who, because of the position of being "elected" or "predestined" have turned away from the gospel. In fact, I have a brother who said, "I can't be of the elect, then, because I don't believe Calvin's positions on grace, etc." He believes in God's sovereignty, but he doesn't believe in Calvinism. He's walked away from the faith, from God, and is living a quite wicked lifestyle. But, I've also got a brother who believes like some who hold the Arminian position (usually the AoG, CoC, Nazarene, Free Will Baptists) that a person can walk away from their salvation, and do so on a regular basis. Must be a sad position to hold.
 
Ransom said:
There's no mental gymnastics at all. God works righteousness and sanctification in his people. He doesn't work unrighteousness and sin in those who aren't his people. He isn't the author of sin because they author their own sins. He just permits them to sin themselves to death.
Click to expand...
I'm probably too dense to realize the implications of your answer, but how does what you said deal with or explain the idea of God ordaining all that comes to pass, including sin in either the non-elect OR the elect, absolve Him from culpability? Put another way, how does the definition of "ordains all..." (assuming that means God causes all) remove him from responsibility in any way?
 
ALAYMAN said:
I'm probably too dense to realize the implications of your answer, but how does what you said deal with or explain the idea of God ordaining all that comes to pass, including sin in either the non-elect OR the elect, absolve Him from culpability? Put another way, how does the definition of "ordains all..." (assuming that means God causes all) remove him from responsibility in any way?
Click to expand...
God is the "author" of our faith (Heb. 12:2), i.e. the founder, the originator. He has prepared good works for his people to do (Eph. 2:10).

By contrast, Scripture does not say God is the "author" (originator) of sin, nor does it say God has created evil works for the reprobate to walk in. There's no divine work of "anti-sanctification" in the reprobate to parallel the work of sanctification in the elect.

We can infer that if God ordains everything that comes to pass, he has done so in a way that the reprobates freely choose to commit their sins of their own volition, not because he has commanded or encouraged their sins, or participated in them.

God "intended" that Joseph be sold into slavery (Gen. 50:20). He used the evil of Joseph's brothers to put Joseph in Egypt at the right time and place to preserve life, and ultimately to build his chosen people into a nation. Does that mean God was the author of his brothers' sins? No, it means he let them sin.
 
Ransom said:
God is the "author" of our faith (Heb. 12:2), i.e. the founder, the originator. He has prepared good works for his people to do (Eph. 2:10).

By contrast, Scripture does not say God is the "author" (originator) of sin, nor does it say God has created evil works for the reprobate to walk in. There's no divine work of "anti-sanctification" in the reprobate to parallel the work of sanctification in the elect.

We can infer that if God ordains everything that comes to pass, he has done so in a way that the reprobates freely choose to commit their sins of their own volition, not because he has commanded or encouraged their sins, or participated in them.

God "intended" that Joseph be sold into slavery (Gen. 50:20). He used the evil of Joseph's brothers to put Joseph in Egypt at the right time and place to preserve life, and ultimately to build his chosen people into a nation. Does that mean God was the author of his brothers' sins? No, it means he let them sin.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the effort to answer, and promise I'm not intending to be either argumentative nor obtuse, and even though there is boatloads in what you said that I understand and agree with, it is a few of the things that you said that has always given me difficulty. For instance, when you say "No, it means he let them sin" that doesn't seem to comport with my understanding of what it means to ordain something. I can't reconcile the philosophic nor literal language of the concept of permissibility with causality. I'll leave it at that so as to not make this overly wordy, and that is my main hurdle in the sovereignty/freewill debate.
 
Ransom said:
There's no mental gymnastics at all. God works righteousness and sanctification in his people. He doesn't work unrighteousness and sin in those who aren't his people. He isn't the author of sin because they author their own sins. He just permits them to sin themselves to death.
Click to expand...
Calvinists generally believe the Westminster Confession which states God ordains all things. All things. Everything. It makes him the author of sin by definition from their belief.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Non-Cals are quite funny how they complain that God won't allow people to have a free will....
Click to expand...
Oh stop. Non-Calvinists are not complaining God won't allow people to have free will. They believe God already has done it.

Baptist Renegade said:
in order to "Choose Christ" but then they complain when God gives them a free will in order to "Choose to sin!"
Click to expand...
Non-Calvinists complain that God gives them free will? Where are you getting this?
Baptist Renegade said:
I say that man has a completely free will but with that FREE WILL, he will FREELY choose to run from God and remain in darkness.
Click to expand...
If you believe God ordained everything that would mean the choices God made. You want to say you believe man freely chooses ...NOT if God had ordained the actions. Sorry but that's a contradiction.
 
AverageJoe said:
I have a brother who said, "I can't be of the elect, then, because I don't believe Calvin's positions on grace, etc." He believes in God's sovereignty, but he doesn't believe in Calvinism. He's walked away from the faith, from God, and is living a quite wicked lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Good grief! Backsliding happens to Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. You're trying to imply being a Non-Calvinists makes one prone to rebel against God?


 
Rockson said:
Good grief! Backsliding happens to Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. You're trying to imply being a Non-Calvinists makes one prone to rebel against God?
Click to expand...
I'm not "implying" ANYTHING. I'm saying he probably wasn't saved to begin with. Maybe you should go play, little one.
 
Rockson said:
Calvinists generally believe the Westminster Confession which states God ordains all things. All things. Everything. It makes him the author of sin by definition from their belief.
Click to expand...
Well, that's one way of looking at it, if you're a simpleton and ignorant of centuries of theological discussion on the topic
 
Rockson said:
Oh stop. Non-Calvinists are not complaining God won't allow people to have free will. They believe God already has done it.


Non-Calvinists complain that God gives them free will? Where are you getting this?

If you believe God ordained everything that would mean the choices God made. You want to say you believe man freely chooses ...NOT if God had ordained the actions. Sorry but that's a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Are you an open theist?
 
Ransom said:
Well, that's one way of looking at it, if you're a simpleton and ignorant of centuries of theological discussion on the topic
Click to expand...
Well I'd say I'm not a new kid on the block when it comes to all you say. All through the years I've read what Calvinist claim but I take it to what they're REALLY saying without using words, and how the words they say can't be used in the manner in which they do.
 
AverageJoe said:
I'm not "implying" ANYTHING. I'm saying he probably wasn't saved to begin with. Maybe you should go play, little one.
Click to expand...
I asked a question I didn't make a declaration. I asked, "You're trying to imply being a Non-Calvinists makes one prone to rebel against God?"

No need to be so absolutely condescending and mean in calling me a little one. Why can't some of you just engage in some good conversation. If perhaps you don't want that then fine.

I guess I'd ask is anyone here even interested in having discussion without all this degrading another. I trust and hope maybe there is. We'll see.
 
Ransom said:
We can infer that if God ordains everything that comes to pass, he has done so in a way that the reprobates freely choose to commit their sins of their own volition, not because he has commanded or encouraged their sins, or participated in them.
Click to expand...
Sorry Ransom but you're wanting to be on the Non-Calvinist ground and be and claim you're on that belonging to Calvinists.

What you're really saying is God merely allows whatever. If that's what you're saying Non-Calvinists agree with that HOWEVER that is not what Calvinism teaches. To ordain all must mean God orchestrated all to take place if it didn't mean that all through the centuries ( you talked to me about that in a prior post) there would have been NO disagreement.

I'd say you must say what you mean. Do you believe God merely allows things....or is it beyond just that. I think you're really saying it's beyond just that. If it's beyond just allowing then it has to mean an encouragement to sin regardless of what you say.
 
Rockson said:
I asked a question I didn't make a declaration. I asked, "You're trying to imply being a Non-Calvinists makes one prone to rebel against God?"

No need to be so absolutely condescending and mean in calling me a little one. Why can't some of you just engage in some good conversation. If perhaps you don't want that then fine.

I guess I'd ask is anyone here even interested in having discussion without all this degrading another. I trust and hope maybe there is. We'll see.
Click to expand...
When one comes here and is inane in their initial postings, what in the world are we supposed to think? Stating what is obvious is the first sign of senility. Jus' sayin'! Now, with that behind us, I'm all for having an interesting discussion if someone isn't being obtuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top