Arminianism is inconsistent

[OzSpen]

I think the point Skala is making is the the choice isn't what you think it is.

14 "Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.
15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." - Joshua 24:14-15

The choice is which false god will they serve?

You seem to have missed the other choice, 'But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD'.

 

[John Robie]

You seem to have missed the other choice, 'But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD'.

I didn't miss it. What you might have missed is that he didn't say he chose to serve the Lord. Also he didn't even tell them to choose to serve the Lord. It's probably best if you just stick with the text instead of reading your theology into it.

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't miss it. What you might have missed is that he didn't say he chose to serve the Lord. Also he didn't even tell them to choose to serve the Lord. It's probably best if you just stick with the text instead of reading your theology into it.

Your accusation of reading my theology into the text is false.

Of Joshua 24:15, Matthew Pool's commentary states:

Matthew Poole's Commentary
If it seem evil; unjust, unreasonable, or inconvenient.

Choose you this day whom ye will serve: not that he leaves them to their liberty, whether they would serve God or idols; for Joshua had no such power or liberty himself, nor could give it to any other; and both he and they were obliged by the law of Moses to give their worship to God only, and to forbear all idolatry in themselves, and severely to punish it in others; but it is a rhetorical and powerful insinuation, whereby he both implies that the worship of God is so highly reasonable, so necessary and beneficial, and the service of idols is so absurd, and vain, and pernicious, that if it were left free to all men to make their choice, every man in his right wits must needs choose the service of God before that of idols; and provokes them to bind themselves faster to God by their own choice. See such manner of speeches in Ruth 1:8,15 1 Kings 18:21.

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord; but know this, if you should all be so base and brutish, as to prefer senseless and impotent idols before the true and living God, it is my firm purpose, that I will, and my children and servants (as far as I can influence them) shall, be constant and faithful to the Lord.

So is Matthew Poole imposing his theology on the text?

Oz

 

[John Robie]

Your accusation of reading my theology into the text is false.

Of Joshua 24:15, Matthew Pool's commentary states:


So is Matthew Poole imposing his theology on the text?

Oz

I know my accusation is accurate. You believe in free will, and you use this text to prove it. My guess is you've used it many times as the subject comes up.

But the text says what it says. The choice Joshua mentions is a choice between false gods. He never even says that he's chosen to serve God.

That's the plain reading of the text.

 

[mikedsjr]

In Joshua 24, Joshua has gathered all the people of Israel and begins to speak

Thus says the Lord

So Joshua begins to speak for what God has told him to says. When Joshua says "you", he never means the individual "you", but Israel as a whole. It's clear.

"...long ago your fathers..."

"...I brought your fathers out of Egypt.....and you came to the Sea...."

On it goes.

Israel is under a covenant. Just like the Covenant all humanity is under Adam. Because of one man all have sinned. With Israel, just one man's sin can cause an entire army to fail victory. Because of a handful of men, Israel is stuck in the wilderness for 40 years.

It's interesting to me, they either took some gods or made some since arriving in the land God gave them, yet they have shown their true colors. We don't know if it was 5, 10,1000 or more with idols. But corporately they as a unit were covenantly condemned as a group. Do you believe their response was genuine? Or like a response of a guilty man trying to stay out of jail? The book of judges tells us.

 

[mikedsjr]

I know my accusation is accurate. You believe in free will, and you use this text to prove it. My guess is you've used it many times as the subject comes up.

But the text says what it says. The choice Joshua mentions is a choice between false gods. He never even says that he's chosen to serve God.

That's the plain reading of the text.

I don't think your being completely fair with him. With blue, this might hold true. But oz, that's reading a bit in.

 

[John Robie]

I don't think your being completely fair with him. With blue, this might hold true. But oz, that's reading a bit in.

If he's never used this as a proof text for free will, then I will apologize.

 

[mikedsjr]

If he's never used this as a proof text for free will, then I will apologize.

Was there another option given? Another choice given within the Narrative?

 

[OzSpen]

I know my accusation is accurate. You believe in free will, and you use this text to prove it. My guess is you've used it many times as the subject comes up.

But the text says what it says. The choice Joshua mentions is a choice between false gods. He never even says that he's chosen to serve God.

That's the plain reading of the text.

Your description is inaccurate. I do not believe in free will. I believe in the FREED will. Please know the difference.

You nailed your approach to my post, 'My guess is....' We have nothing further to discuss when you are in the guessing game.

I provided you evidence from Matthew Poole's commentary that contradicts the view you present here. So what did you do? You made not a mention of Poole's opposition to your position.

Bye.

 

[OzSpen]

If he's never used this as a proof text for free will, then I will apologize.

How will you know?

 

[John Robie]

Your description is inaccurate. I do not believe in free will. I believe in the FREED will. Please know the difference.

You nailed your approach to my post, 'My guess is....' We have nothing further to discuss when you are in the guessing game.

I provided you evidence from Matthew Poole's commentary that contradicts the view you present here. So what did you do? You made not a mention of Poole's opposition to your position.

Bye.

What's the difference between a freed will and a free will?

 

[John Robie]

How will you know?

I assume you'd be honest about whether or not you've used it as a proof text.

 

[OzSpen]

What's the difference between a freed will and a free will?

Are you saying that you don't know the difference? Honestly?

 

[OzSpen]

I assume you'd be honest about whether or not you've used it as a proof text.

Let's broaden it. Did Adam and Eve have a choice in the Garden of Eden? Could they have chosen to eat or not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17)?

What did they do? From the beginning of time, what options were given to Adam & Eve?

 

[John Robie]

Are you saying that you don't know the difference? Honestly?

Yes. It would seem to me that a freed will is a free will. But you seem to make a differentiation.

 

[John Robie]

Let's broaden it. Did Adam and Eve have a choice in the Garden of Eden? Could they have chosen to eat or not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17)?

What did they do? From the beginning of time, what options were given to Adam & Eve?

I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not you've used Joshua 24 as a proof text.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes. It would seem to me that a freed will is a free will. But you seem to make a differentiation.

I have already given you a verse that demonstrates a freed will, but you didn't like it. I'm referring to Titus 2:11 (ESV), 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'.

Steve Sewell explains it this way,

Because Of Sin, Man Is Condemned:

Romans 5:16 — 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. NASB

Romans 5:18 — 18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.

Because of sin, we are separated from God. If we die in this separated state, we will spend eternity in separation from God in a place of torment. And because of sin, there’s not a thing we can do about it. Only God can deliver us from this, otherwise, hopeless state.

Such is the plight of mankind. That’s a lot to overcome. Our study makes it clear that we’re unable to do that ourselves. God’s grace is needed to overcome this deep spiritual depravity. In order to see the truth that is in Christ, only God’s grace can overcome this spiritual barrier that prevents it. It’s in regard to the operation of God’s grace that Calvinists and Arminians differ in their understanding. Arminians hold to a view that’s known as prevenient grace, while Calvinists hold to a view that’s known as irresistible grace.

Calvinists believe that God’s grace comes in the form of the new birth. They believe that in order for a person to see the truth, in order for them to be able to come to faith in Christ, they must first be regenerated. Thus they believe that regeneration precedes faith.

Arminians believe that regeneration follows faith in Christ, that it’s a result of faith, not a condition for it (Acts 15:8-9; Gal 3:2,14,25-26; Jn 1:12-13; 12:36). We believe that this barrier of spiritual depravity is overcome by way of the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit within a person’s heart, within the core of one’s being. It’s the Holy Spirit Himself who overcomes our spiritual darkness by opening our eyes to the truth. He further frees our will that is bound by sin. Since we’re slaves to sin, our wills must be freed so that we’re able to respond to the gospel message in the positive manner of humble faith.

However, we don’t believe this illumination and freeing of the will necessarily results in salvation. We believe that God’s gracious work within the sinner can be resisted in pride. This work of the Spirit of God enables one to respond in either direction. This way, God’s love and offer of salvation is freely received or freely rejected. It’s a genuine offer that is in harmony with the Bible’s teaching that Christ died for all mankind and that salvation is available to all who hear the gospel message. That one must freely receive the offer of salvation from a willing heart of faith, is in harmony with the unlimited atonement of Christ that is so clearly presented in God’s Word — that most Calvinists deny. However, as the following Scriptures reveal, that’s a lot to deny: Matt 11:28; Jn 1:7-9,16,29; 3:17; 4:42; 6:51; 12:32; 20:31; Ro 5:15,19; 10:18; 11:32; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Eph 3:9; 1 Tim 2:4-6; 4:10; Tit 2:11; He 2:9; 2 Pe 3:9; 1 Jn 4:14.

So here we have the two positions on the operation of God’s grace in the matter of salvation. In regard to the new birth, we’ve already seen that the Arminian position is faith before regeneration (“Why Irresistible Grace Doesn’t Work, and Why Prevenient Grace Does”, emphasis in original).

So a freed will, as opposed to free will, means that human beings who are slaves to sin are freed in the will to be able to respond positively to the Gospel message in faith that is dependent on God alone for salvation.

Oz

 

[John Robie]

I have already given you a verse that demonstrates a freed will, but you didn't like it. I'm referring to Titus 2:11 (ESV), 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'.

Steve Sewell explains it this way,


So a freed will, as opposed to free will, means that human beings who are slaves to sin are freed in the will to be able to respond positively to the Gospel message in faith that is dependent on God alone for salvation.

Oz

In scripture, it describes those who are slaves of sin and those who are slaves of righteousness. There's no middle ground, which is what you'd need to make your view work.

 

[OzSpen]

In scripture, it describes those who are slaves of sin and those who are slaves of righteousness. There's no middle ground, which is what you'd need to make your view work.

You have not dealt with my evidence provided for the freed will. When you don't address the topic I raised explaining the freed will, you have committed a red herring logical fallacy.

 

[John Robie]

You have not dealt with my evidence provided for the freed will. When you don't address the topic I raised explaining the freed will, you have committed a red herring logical fallacy.

I addressed it in the fact that I explained the two types of slaves described in scripture. That nullifies your evidence. Therefore it needs not be discussed.