The "Free Will" Dilemma

[janxharris]

It is. All men by nature resist it. And when God is ready to bring one of his children to faith, he overcomes that resistance. That's the doctrine of irresistible grace. I'm so thankful for that! I'm so glad God came and rescued me and brought me to himself rather than waiting for me to do the right thing and to go to him. Praise God!

How do you respond to the accusation that God picked your name out of a hat griff? Did he?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Because it is not. It is common grace. It is no more a violation of free will than a person receiving a soul/spirit is a violation of free will.

"because it's not" isn't the best way of countering any argument, as I taught my kids many moons ago.

God takes the initiative in all salvation. We know that prevenient grace is not a violation of free will because God has stated it clearly what He has done:
This means that the human will is freed in relation to salvation. It is not a violation of free will. We know that the will has been freed in relation to salvation because it is implied in the exhortations:

• to turn to God. (Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; and Acts 3:19;
• to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 17:30), and
• to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23.

Sounds like a perfect description of an Effectual Call or Effectual Grace or "Irresistible" Grace if you like.

I give up on how many times you've been told that Effectual Grace frees the bound will in relation to salvation, yet you describe the exact same thing, relabel it and call it fine. If your Prevenient Grace allows man to comprehend God fully, and recognise the depths of his own sin, the consequences of it and the saving power of God, are you trying to tell us there is a man who has ever lived who would opt for eternal torment over the wonders of the Creator?

Prevenient grace is no more a violation of a person's will than their receiving a beating heart before birth and breath after birth.

Oz

Effectual Grace is giving spiritual sight to the blind. It's the equivalent of dragging a child from the path of a screaming truck. You describe the exact same thing and to defend totally free will you illogically have the majority of mankind committing the worst kind of mass suicide.

 

[janxharris]

So from what I can tell, neither prevenient grace nor irresistible grace can be resisted. Here is the difference between the two:

Prevenient grace - God gives man the tools necessary to pull himself up by his bootstraps and bring himself to God. May or may not result in salvation. Depends on the man and if he's good enough to obey and quit being stubborn.

Irresistible grace - God brings man to himself giving everything required for salvation, including the desire to be saved, faith and repentance that will persevere to the end, resulting in salvation every single time.

And the synergists like Oz want us to believe the one that results in salvation is a horrible thing. Huh.

If faith is accepting that we are unable without God working through us to get right with God, then where is the boast? One is actually admitting failure.

 

[crimsonleaf]

How do you respond to the accusation that God picked your name out of a hat griff? Did he?

Sorry to step in Griff, but I'd just like the pleasure of explaining for the 1000th time to Janx that WE DON'T KNOW THE REASON FOR GOD'S CHOICE isn't the same as GOD PICKED OUR NAMES OUT OF HATS.

Janx, you seem to be always saying that God's counsel and good pleasure = arbitrary. Maybe, just maybe, God has a reason we don't know about, eh?

All we know is that we can't consciously act in such a way that God chooses us.

 

[janxharris]

Why don't you consider prevenient grace a violation of free will?

It's resistible.

 

[crimsonleaf]

It's resistible.

Not according to Oz.

 

[janxharris]

"because it's not" isn't the best way of countering any argument, as I taught my kids many moons ago.

Are such put downs really necessary crimsonleaf?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Free will and omniscience are incompatible. To maintain that God foreknows the future with total accuracy when people have complete freedom to reach their own independent decisions, involves one in performing mental gymnastics in order to try and explain what is logically impossible.

Here we disagree. While I agree that will is limited to some extent, there is no incompatibility between free will and omniscience, and no gymnastics required. Free will and predestination is another story.

A man is given three coloured counters and told to keep one of them. The choice he makes is totally free - he chooses red.

Before time began (however that is interpreted) God foresaw the choice of a red counter.

Logically therefore, the man could never choose any other colour but red, otherwise God's foreknowledge would be faulty. But the doesn't take away the fact that (in time) the man's choice was free. This is compatible free will. However, if the man had chosen the green counter, and he could have, then that is what God would have seen in His foreknowledge.

The reason that the will remains free is that omniscience is an observational trait, exerting no influence on a man's decision.

Omnipotence is the trait that makes the changes.

Predestination and free will deals with the influence of God on a man's actions and is a totally different argument. I believe in predestination as a scriptural truth, and the relationship between it and our perceived free will is a mystery to me, and I suspect anyone else. What we can plainly say is that God is in the driving seat and doesn't have to react to any surprises we pull on him. His will WILL be done and His influence in changing, hardening and softening hearts is all over the Bible like a rash.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Are such put downs really necessary crimsonleaf?

Thanks for chipping in Janx. Anything constructive to add?

 

[janxharris]

Sorry to step in Griff, but I'd just like the pleasure of explaining for the 1000th time to Janx that WE DON'T KNOW THE REASON FOR GOD'S CHOICE isn't the same as GOD PICKED OUR NAMES OUT OF HATS.

Janx, you seem to be always saying that God's counsel and good pleasure = arbitrary. Maybe, just maybe, God has a reason we don't know about, eh?

All we know is that we can't consciously act in such a way that God chooses us.

This issue is obviously unsettling for you crimsonleaf. You seemed to be annoyed that I continually point out a clear contradiction in your theology. If it's nothing about the person, then it is everything about God's choosing. Names in a hat is nothing about the person and everything about the selector.

 

[janxharris]

Thanks for chipping in Janx. Anything constructive to add?

Yes. You continually break this Forum's rules with such unnecessary posts. Will you stop please?

 

[janxharris]

Not according to Oz.

Oz is not a universalist so I don't see how that can be true. Perhaps oz will clarify.

 

[crimsonleaf]

This issue is obviously unsettling for you crimsonleaf. You seemed to be annoyed that I continually point out a clear contradiction in your theology. If it's nothing about the person, then it is everything about God's choosing. Names in a hat is nothing about the person and everything about the selector.

No Janx, pointing out the same fact over and over like a broken record is frustrating. Your answer here is equally frustrating as once again you've shown that you not only don't understand what I'm saying, but you clearly don't understand what you are saying.

Firstly, I have not said is that it's nothing about the person. You even quoted me saying that it's nothing we consciously do. I even emboldened it so you wouldn't make the error you just have. So to be clear again - God chooses according to His own counsel and good pleasure; we don't know the reasons for His choice, but we can be confident He has reasons, simply because He's God. This means His choices aren't arbitrary, but unless we know the mind of God (which Scripture says we most definitely can not) then we probably never will know exactly what those reasons are.

However, under the Arminian system, salvation is entirely arbitrary. God throws out the ol' prevenient fishing line and waits to see who bites.

God to Mrs God: "I nearly caught me a Dawkins today, but the son of a gun got away"
Mrs God to God: "You say that every day dear, better LUCK tomorrow".

PS. I know there isn't a Mrs God.

 

[OzSpen]

"because it's not" isn't the best way of countering any argument, as I taught my kids many moons ago.

Sounds like a perfect description of an Effectual Call or Effectual Grace or "Irresistible" Grace if you like.

I give up on how many times you've been told that Effectual Grace frees the bound will in relation to salvation, yet you describe the exact same thing, relabel it and call it fine. If your Prevenient Grace allows man to comprehend God fully, and recognise the depths of his own sin, the consequences of it and the saving power of God, are you trying to tell us there is a man who has ever lived who would opt for eternal torment over the wonders of the Creator?

Effectual Grace is giving spiritual sight to the blind. It's the equivalent of dragging a child from the path of a screaming truck. You describe the exact same thing and to defend totally free will you illogically have the majority of mankind committing the worst kind of mass suicide.

Again you are distorting what I wrote to try to bring it closer to your theology. Please, for the sake of honesty in our discussions, do not change the meaning of what I wrote. It is not what you want it to be.

Oz

 

[crimsonleaf]

Yes. You continually break this Forum's rules with such unnecessary posts. Will you stop please?

This is a place for debate. When someone answers "Because it is" to a question they should be challenged on their response. There is a process for you to follow if you're unhappy with that.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Again you are distorting what I wrote to try to bring it closer to your theology. Please, for the sake of honesty in our discussions, do not change the meaning of what I wrote. It is not what you want it to be.

Oz

Seriously, please correct me and show me the distortion. I quoted you exactly and without omission. I answered every point and compared the effects as described by you to the effects of effectual grace.

How on Earth do you think I've distorted anything?

 

[OzSpen]

Effectual Grace is giving spiritual sight to the blind. It's the equivalent of dragging a child from the path of a screaming truck. You describe the exact same thing and to defend totally free will you illogically have the majority of mankind committing the worst kind of mass suicide.

Nice try but no cigars. Prevenient grace is exactly as the Scriptures describe in Titus 2:11,

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people' (ESV).

It has nothing whatsoever to do with being the equivalent of dragging anyone. ALL PEOPLE means ALL PEOPLE in Titus 2:11 and God's prevenient grace has appeared to ALL PEOPLE. When will you ever get it that this has nothing to do with your understanding of irresistible grace?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Not according to Oz.

Janx said of prevenient grace 'It's resistible' and you have the audacity to falsely represent what I wrote. I have never EVER said that prevenient grace is NOT resistible. You again distort and invent what I did not write. Please quit your misrepresentation of my position.

As there are multiple millions of people in the world and have been throughout human history who have not received Christ's salvation, will you please get my understanding as clear as crystal: Prevenient grace IS resistible, even though it HAS APPEARED to all people. That's Bible! And it's found in Titus 2:11.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Seriously, please correct me and show me the distortion. I quoted you exactly and without omission. I answered every point and compared the effects as described by you to the effects of effectual grace.

How on Earth do you think I've distorted anything?

This is your distortion of my view:

Sounds like a perfect description of an Effectual Call or Effectual Grace or "Irresistible" Grace if you like

Prevenient grace is nothing like your understanding of call, effectual grace or irresistible grace. What a travesty that you want to distort and invent and make prevenient grace look like irresistible grace. That's your distortion.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So from what I can tell, neither prevenient grace nor irresistible grace can be resisted. Here is the difference between the two:

Prevenient grace - God gives man the tools necessary to pull himself up by his bootstraps and bring himself to God. May or may not result in salvation. Depends on the man and if he's good enough to obey and quit being stubborn.

Irresistible grace - God brings man to himself giving everything required for salvation, including the desire to be saved, faith and repentance that will persevere to the end, resulting in salvation every single time.

And the synergists like Oz want us to believe the one that results in salvation is a horrible thing. Huh.

When will you accurately represent those who believe in prevenient grace by quoting theologians who believe the Bible teaches such. I have tried to do that in my definition. But what do you do, you create a straw man of your own making.

Please quit the false representations of prevenient grace and of my view.

Oz