Arminianism is absolutely illogical and unbiblical

[Mountainmanbob]

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.





John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.​

The God of Calvinism could not predestine EVERYONE to salvation if that was what He willed? 2 Peter seems to be saying that. Not wanting any to perish. All to repent.

"All" means all. But if men love darkness rather than HIS light, they can choose to stay in the darkness. This Calvinism denies.

Obviously there is a deeper message to be found because if God wished for none to perish then none would perish.
M-Bob

 

[Dave-W]

Obviously there is a deeper message to be found because if God wished for none to perish then none would perish.
M-Bob

Face the plain meaning. What God wants is not always what we choose.

As an old friend of blessed memory used to say: The only thing God holds sacred is our freedom of choice.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Face the plain meaning. What God wants is not always what we choose.

As an old friend of blessed memory used to say: The only thing God holds sacred is our freedom of choice.

Maybe some were smarter than their neighbors with their free choice and got themselves saved?
M-Bob

 

[sdowney717]

I guess that you were smarter than your neighbor with your free choice and got yourself saved -- okay.
M-Bob

A darwin award for sure, a survival of the spiritually fittest! Simply being a better learner I suppose...

 

[Mountainmanbob]

As an old friend of blessed memory used to say: The only thing God holds sacred is our freedom of choice.

Okay so we know from reading our Bibles that sometimes God hardens one's heart. So where is there Freedom of Choice after that? Only to choose bad?

M-Bob

 

[Loren T.]

Okay so we know from reading our Bibles that sometimes God hardens one's heart. So where is there Freedom of Choice after that? Only to choose bad?

M-Bob

There comes a time for everyone when their choice has been made. In every case those that God hardened had already hardened themselves. And we know that the hardened Jews received another chance, so this hardening even after one has chosen against God, is not always irreversible. And Calvinistic theology makes God already the director of men's will, so it's redundant to say God would have to harden or soften anyone.

 

[Dave-W]

And even if you have a hardened heart, a choice can be made to soften it; but it is a difficult choice to make.

Pharaoh could even at the 9th plague decided to let Moses and Israel go, but it was much easier to not decide against that hard heart.

 

[childeye 2]

As an old friend of blessed memory used to say: The only thing God holds sacred is our freedom of choice.

Respectfully, your dear friends words would include the necessary implication that God would hold the choice/option of atheism to be sacred to God. Why would atheism or Satanism or sin for that matter be sacred to God? They wouldn't be, since they cannot exist Eternal, therefore your friend's assessment is inaccurate.

 

[Loren T.]

Respectfully, your dear friends words would include the necessary implication that God would hold atheism to be sacred. Why would atheism or Satanism or sin be sacred to God? They wouldn't be, since they cannot exist Eternal, therefore your friend's assessment is problematic...

I think this is called a false equivocation. To say God considers man's choice to be sacred somehow means he considers atheism sacred? What would be odd is if God chose atheism or satanism for some people, like he does in Calvinism.

 

[childeye 2]

Maybe some were smarter than their neighbors with their free choice and got themselves saved?
M-Bob

Was that a random smartness?

 

[Loren T.]

Was that a random smartness?

No smarter, but more humble. Pride is always the problem, humility always the answer.

 

[childeye 2]

I think this is called a false equivocation. To say God considers man's choice to be sacred somehow means he considers atheism sacred? What would be odd is if God chose atheism or satanism for some people, like he does in Calvinism.

Respectfully, I think you meant to say a false equivalency. And again with respect, it is not a false equivalency. I stated a self evident fact, that if there existed a freedom to choose in the moral/immoral construct, and that God held a man's freedom to choose as sacred, then that would include the bad choices of atheism, Satanism and all manner of sin.

My point is to show that no such freedom to choose exists in the moral/immoral purview. And that is because the will of mankind is subject to the knowledge and ignorance of God. Prove me wrong that the moral/immoral will of mankind is not subject to the ignorance and knowledge of God and then free will can logically exist.

 

[childeye 2]

No smarter, but more humble. Pride is always the problem, humility always the answer.

Free will is pride when it presumes to know better than God, through contemplating that there is a viable option to God to be considered.

 

[Loren T.]

My point is to show that no such freedom to choose exists in the moral/immoral purview. And that is because the will of mankind is subject to the knowledge and ignorance of God. Prove me wrong that the moral/immoral will of mankind is not subject to the ignorance and knowledge of God and then free will can logically exist.

stated a self evident fact, that if there existed a freedom to choose in the moral/immoral construct, and that God held a man's freedom to choose as sacred, then that would include the bad choices of atheism, Satanism and all manner of sin.

No, because God doesn't determine our choices. Seems to me it's up to you to prove he does, since the whole of scripture pre supposes men's ability to make moral and immoral choices.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Face the plain meaning. What God wants is not always what we choose.

This is true on one hand, on the other hand what do we say about what God allows? I find the sovereign will of God to be a great mystery overall. I understand less than I understand concerning it. We can make distinctions in His will, like in what He commands, when He directly acts, and what He allows, and still come way short of understanding.

As an old friend of blessed memory used to say: The only thing God holds sacred is our freedom of choice.

Sorry, but I believe your friend was a slightly off base with that comment or line of thought. Originally I think God held sacred all of creation, everything He had made was blessed and counted as "good" and pleasing in His sight. He especially blessed man creating him in His image. However as a result of the fall, creation was cursed, and with the curse, the loss of freedom of choice to please God, to do righteousness. The freedom of choice from that point on, could only please God where there is faith. Apart from God, our freedom of choice is like a curse, the freedom of sinful creatures acting only in accordance with the freedoms of a sinful nature, unable to do that for which He was created, please God, to worship and Adore Him. God holds most sacred, our worship to Him, His purpose for creating man.

 

[childeye 2]

No, because God doesn't determine our choices. Seems to me it's up to you to prove he does, since the whole of scripture pre supposes men's ability to make moral and immoral choices.

God is Spirit and His Spirit is recognized and testified to, as Love/empathy/kindness in scripture. Without His Spirit, there is no impetus in the flesh to love others as we would want to be loved. Hence He does determine our moral/immoral choices. Love exists and man's morality is dependent upon Love.

While it appears that scripture, particularly in the Old Testament, pre-supposes men's ability to make moral/immoral choices, it does not state that men are righteous apart from God's Spirit. This pre-supposition is an illusion formed through conflating choice/option with choice/decision. In other words just because good and evil exist so as to must choose between them, it does not mean a person's will is free to viably choose either way. Have to go for now. Nice talking with you.

 

[childeye 2]

[

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

No smarter, but more humble. Pride is always the problem, humility always the answer.

Strangely I think I technically learned more about humility from C.S. Lewis than any other. The moment we even think we are humble, we are prideful. Interesting how that works, our self-efforts at humility are prideful in themselves.

 

[Albion]

Hello, JCS. One thing I notice whenever this topic comes up is the absence of any acknowledgment of the fact that those who are lost have their sins to account for it.

No, the rejection of election is always described as though millions of people who are otherwise deserving of heaven are shut out unfairly.

IF they had lived a sinless life, that might be a point worth debating. Does anyone here know of such a person?? No.

 

[Dave-W]

Respectfully, your dear friends words would include the necessary implication that God would hold the choice/option of atheism to be sacred to God.

Indeed. If you choose atheism, God is not going to override that choice.

That is what Dr Ferris meant by holding it sacred.

BUT, the consequences of that choice are entirely on yourself.