Free Offer?

[JM]

 

[Poor Beggar]

Look, you were either predestined to be an Arminian or you chose to be a Calvinist.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Look, you were either predestined to be an Arminian or you chose to be a Calvinist.

Are you rejecting the binary argument?

 

[Poor Beggar]

Are you rejecting the binary argument?

Yep.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Yep.

Okay, then, let's have it out. What's your third option?

 

[Poor Beggar]

Okay, then, let's have it out. What's your third option?

I'm going to preface it by saying that I may not respond to every reply because they will either be rude, or I may simply not have the time.
I believe God is fully sovereign and chooses to grant us free will. How much depends on the circumstances. God didn't ask me if I wanted to be born before I existed, nor will I be able to refuse His command to come out of my grave and be judged. But every day I experience obvious volitional choice-making. The degree depends on how much it pleases Him to grant me. Sometimes I get a lot, sometimes I get little. When I handle it badly I seem to get less. This reminds me of Jeremiah 18 where Israel handles their decision-making badly and God reshaped the clay. But...they had a choice. This view is assuredly a construct, but it allows me to make sense of the scriptures from cover to cover without forcing God into a five point box while claiming he is "sovereign". He doesn't have to obey my will no matter how enticing systems can be. I do not buy into particular redemption as I do not see it in the scriptures, nor does the Holy Spirit living in me permit me to view Christ's sacrifice in that manner. I do, however, see how someone might think they see it in the scriptures.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I believe God is fully sovereign and chooses to grant us free will.

The term free will in this discussion usually refers to an aspect of the human nature that God deliberately relinquishes sovereignty over. Hence, you would be claiming that God is initially fully sovereign, until he relinquishes that sovereignty to give rise to a person's free will. Then, you're suggesting that he occasionally opts to reclaim that sovereignty at the expense of that free will. Is that your meaning?

I have to ask that, because the idea that we have free will, plus the idea that God has full sovereignty, at the same time would imply that our free will is also God's free will, which would make us God, which would make us pantheists. I'm just clarifying that you don't mean that both states exist at the same time?

 

[Job8]

Are you rejecting the binary argument?

The binary argument is good for trading options.

 

[Poor Beggar]

The term free will in this discussion usually refers to an aspect of the human nature that God deliberately relinquishes sovereignty over. Hence, you would be claiming that God is initially fully sovereign, until he relinquishes that sovereignty to give rise to a person's free will. Then, you're suggesting that he occasionally opts to reclaim that sovereignty at the expense of that free will. Is that your meaning?

I have to ask that, because the idea that we have free will, plus the idea that God has full sovereignty, at the same time would imply that our free will is also God's free will, which would make us God, which would make us pantheists. I'm just clarifying that you don't mean that both states exist at the same time?

No that's not what I'm saying, but I honestly don't know how to make it any more clear. I mean that truthfully.

 

[Poor Beggar]

I guess maybe I could say I don't think God has to relinquish sovereignty because He can do anything without being limited by His actions. If that doesn't help, I'm not going to be able to explain it.

 

[Job8]

The term free will in this discussion usually refers to an aspect of the human nature that God deliberately relinquishes sovereignty over. Hence, you would be claiming that God is initially fully sovereign, until he relinquishes that sovereignty to give rise to a person's free will. Then, you're suggesting that he occasionally opts to reclaim that sovereignty at the expense of that free will. Is that your meaning?

I have to ask that, because the idea that we have free will, plus the idea that God has full sovereignty, at the same time would imply that our free will is also God's free will, which would make us God, which would make us pantheists. I'm just clarifying that you don't mean that both states exist at the same time?

There are several fallacies embedded in this "clarification".

1. What makes you think that God "relinquishes" sovereignty in any of His decisions?

2. Why would giving His creatures free will be a "relinquishing" of His sovereignty?

3. Does sovereignty means absolute rule, not necessarily absolute control over absolutely every decision of every creature?

4. Does any human sovereign make absolute control of his subjects the criterion for sovereignty?

5. Why would an exercise of free will automatically translate into "making us God"?

6. Why would free will in creatures make anyone a Pantheist?

You have assumed a lot about God and His sovereignty, but perhaps your assumptions are fallacious. Unless you can establish from Scripture that God planned to make every decision for every creature in every situation, you have no case.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

A man is driving down the road. His car veers off of the road and crashes.

Basic Arminian position: the car stopped responding to the driver's attempts to steer it. It had a will that was free of the driver's control, and that's why it crashed. We blame the car.

Explanation 2: The driver deliberately drove the car off of the road. We blame the driver. That would be a Calvinistic answer, and probably a hyper-Calvinistic one. The car at no point became uncontrollable.

Explanation 3: The driver took his hands off of the wheel and let the car drift off of the road. We blame the driver. This would be a Calvinistic answer, and probably a moderate Calvinism. The car at no point became uncontrollable.

Explanation 4: The driver was drunk. Still the driver's fault and not the car's

Explanation 5: The driver sometimes held the wheel and sometimes let it go. Driver's fault.

Explanation 6: The driver closed his eyes or was blind. This one almost resembles a true third choice, but it still stands that the driver was in control of the vehicle, even if he didn't know what he was doing. The car had no free will.

Explanation 7: The driver intended to drive the car off of the road, and he thought he was driving it off of the road, but it really had a broken steering shaft and was going off of the road of its own accord. The car was at fault, though the driver would have done the same thing if he could have.

In every case, above, the answer still falls into one of two possible choices: either we blame the driver or we blame the car. Either the car was uncontrollable (had free will), or the driver was somehow to blame.

Explanation 8 to follow this quote:

6. Why would free will in creatures make anyone a Pantheist?

Explanation 8: The driver is bionically fused to his car and is one with the car. Therefore, the car is driving with a mind of its own and the driver is driving it. Hence, both are to blame, because the driver and the car are both the same thing, and it is malfunctioning. This is pantheism, to say that we are god, and both are sovereign at the same time. The only way two things can both be sovereign in the same relationship at the same time is if they are both the same thing, like God the Father and God the Son. Otherwise, one is subject to the other.

I guess maybe I could say I don't think God has to relinquish sovereignty because He can do anything without being limited by His actions. If that doesn't help, I'm not going to be able to explain it.

Don't give up on me now. So far your position looks Calvinistic to me. I don't see it as a third choice. I am, honestly, just trying to nail down your perspective to see where you stand. The fundamental question is whether God has the power to turn a human will. If so, then no matter how often he turns that will, whether he's constantly steering it, or only intermittently steering it, or deliberately letting it drift and not steering the human will, the decision is still his, and he is still in control. Free will doesn't exist unless we somehow have the ability to wrest from God the ability to turn our hearts. The existence of will is not contested, only free will. The question is whether or not the car is going off of the road because the steering column broke and the driver is unable to steer the car, or even if it is mostly broken. Either way, that accident happens by the will of the car being free from the driver. If the driver takes his hands off of the steering wheel and lets it drift, then that's his choice, just as much as if he grabs the steering wheel and makes it drift. It's only not his choice if he can't help what the car does. It's only then that the car operates on free will.

1. What makes you think that God "relinquishes" sovereignty in any of His decisions?

I never said that I thought that God relinquishes authority in any of his decisions. I only suggest that free will is, by its very definition, a thing that goes beyond God's sovereignty. That's what makes it free will, and not just will. I won't argue the existence or nonexistence of human will. That would be silly. Free will is the issue, here.

2. Why would giving His creatures free will be a "relinquishing" of His sovereignty?

Because otherwise it is not really free. It's like Henry Ford's famous quote, "You can have any colour as long as it's black."

3. Does sovereignty means absolute rule, not necessarily absolute control over absolutely every decision of every creature?

Sovereignty means that if God never loses the right to change your mind at any time. He is never helpless about your ultimate decision. He is never helpless in any other way, either. If you believe that he has the power to change your heart toward salvation at any time, then you are a Calvinist. We could argue what kind of Calvinist, but that's another matter.

4. Does any human sovereign make absolute control of his subjects the criterion for sovereignty?

Somewhat a false argument, because no human is both omnipotent and omniscient. However, any human king that loses control over his people ceases to be a king. If he wants them to build a road and they build a park, instead, then he has no sovereignty, at least in that circumstance and at that time.

5. Why would an exercise of free will automatically translate into "making us God"?

It wouldn't. You took me out of context. If we have free will and God has sovereignty at the same time and in the same relationship, then both are acting as the same being, which makes us God. It's the only third option to the question of free will versus predestination. It's either ultimately up to us, or it's ultimately up to God, or the two are synonymous because we are God.

Unless you can establish from Scripture that God planned to make every decision for every creature in every situation, you have no case.

Funny to talk about fallacious arguments, and then to wage a battle against a straw man. I hadn't even made a case when you posted that. All I was doing was asking for clarification. Actually, I still haven't made a case in this thread. Look, why don't you go have a good night's sleep and come back when you can respond to things I've actually said in this thread and not things you imagine I'm leading up to, okay?

 

[Job8]

Like I said, whatever your case, provide Scripture, not lengthy arguments.

 

[Pedrito]

The epistles are full of exhortations. So is much of the Old Testament. Jesus exhorted his followers.

Exhortation by its very nature necessitates the ability of the exhorted to make independent decisions, independent choices for which they take responsibility.

God is sovereign. No doubt. He knows the end from the beginning. That too is beyond question.

However, that does not mean that humans (and animals) are mere robots, doing only what they are pre-programmed to do.

Were it so, exhortation would be pointless. The heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 would not be heroes. The Holy Inspired Bible would be a meaningless mishmash of jumbled thoughts.

The problem of reconciling predestination and free will – yes, meaningfully reconciling – can probably be traced back to two sources:

• Our limited capacity to distinguish between God's prescience and a pre-programming of every little action of every little thing – which lion will kill (or miss killing) which antelope, or zebra, etc. on say, what we would call the thirteenth day of July, 2020 at 10:23am local time. Or was it supposed to be 10:25 and 42 seconds?
• Our misunderstanding of predestination based on the translation (mistranslation) of Romans 8:29,30, and the application of that misunderstanding to other verses referring to predestination.

Romans 8:29,30
“29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Three points can be made.

1. The English translation specifically indicates past actions – actions that have been completed and are no longer occurring. But we know that is not so. Therefore, the relevant Greek verbs (which are in the tenseless Aorist tense, the tense which does not express past, present or future) are in this case best translated as the general continuing present – e.g. “he predestinates, calls, justifies, glorifies”.

2. Those familiar with recent British history know that Prince Charles, when he was born, was predestined to become king of England. But will he become so? The controversy surrounding his private life has thrown some doubt on that. His predestination is not a predetermination.

3. In like manner, what if it is only those who respond positively from among the called that are justified, and what if it is only those who, for instance, “endure unto the end” that are glorified?

Does that not relieve some of the tension associated with the traditional “predestination versus free will” debate?

In fact, does it not render that debate meaningless?

 

[JM]

Exhortation by its very nature necessitates the ability...

I disagree brother.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

It is not possible to be perfect this side of glory.

Consider the resurrection of Lazarus for a moment. Jesus said, "Lazarus is dead." We know this for certain because, "Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh..." But yet, Christ "cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." Are you suggesting Lazarus had the ability to "come forth" after being dead four days? Of course not.

Your premise or principle upon which you offer an objection is undone.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #15, JM attempted to invalidate the statements:

The epistles are full of exhortations. So is much of the Old Testament. Jesus exhorted his followers.

Exhortation by its very nature necessitates the ability of the exhorted to make independent decisions, independent choices for which they take responsibility.

by offering:

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

It is not possible to be perfect this side of glory.

and by pointing out the fact that when Lazarus was dead, he could not have of his own volition obeyed Jesus' command (implied to be an exhortation) to come out of his burial place.

So once again we have the technique of deflection being used to combat an idea (demonstrably Scriptural) that threatens cherished belief. Generally speaking, that technique is employed (as are other related techniques) only in the absence of true and proper evidence.

Jesus' statement is clearly promoting and encouraging the striving towards the nominated goal.

We can all choose to pay the price of striving towards a worthwhile (even if unattainable in full measure) goal, or we can choose not to.

And very obviously, exhortation in Scripture is directed towards the living, not the dead.

(Ecclesiates 9:5 “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.”)

So here we see the use of one misapplied example, and the use of another example unrelated to the issue at hand, to (unsuccessfully) invalidate a Scriptural idea which is generally and clearly true.

Once again I encourage (exhort?) readers to be aware of and reject any attempt and all attempts to deflect their attention away from ideas that the person issuing the deflection finds threatening.

To quote JM's quote back to him:

Your premise or principle upon which you offer an objection is undone.

 

[JM]

GREAT demonstration of sophistry once again. You didn't deal with my point.

I want to thank those who contact me privately and encourage me to continue dealing with this nonsense and time wasting posts made by people like Pedrito.

I gave two examples from scripture as to why Pedrito was spinning his humanistic, Arminain wheels in the mud and he didn't offer anything but slick argumentation. That's sophistry. My rebuttal stands because it hasn't been dealt with....

Yours in the Lord.

 

[JM]

However, that does not mean that humans (and animals) are mere robots, doing only what they are pre-programmed to do.

You seem to be at odds with Jesus who said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."

And made it clear that before regeneration, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

And at odds with Paul, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

It seems you really do not understand scripture so I must disregard your comments. People sin because they are sinners by nature and sinners by choice. The Bible makes that clear...which is why the Gospel is not an offer but a proclamation of the historical fact that Christ died to save sinners.

Yours in the Lord.

 

[Avid]

... I don't see it as a third choice. I am, honestly, just trying to nail down your perspective to see where you stand. The fundamental question is whether God has the power to turn a human will. If so, then no matter how often he turns that will, whether he's constantly steering it, or only intermittently steering it, or deliberately letting it drift and not steering the human will, the decision is still his, and he is still in control...

I'm enjoying the discussion, and hope we can continue and learn, each from one another.

An additional explanation may be in this "Real World" example. My wife remarked how she had not thought of this as I was evaluating a tire problem she complained about.

The CAR is going down the road, and the road is straight. Does the car continue straight down the road without continuous input to the steering wheel from the driver??? If there is a problem that needs correcting, the car may drift while it is trusted to maintain the last input given! The driver (assumed owner and maintenance chief,) momentarily allows the vehicle an autonomy for the purpose of a test. Maintenance may be required after some certain failures. Greater levels of trust may be allowed as the vehicle performs per the driver's expectation!

An applicable side issue relates to an airplane in flight. The Aircraft Designer and Builder made the thing to be very stable, but able to be manipulated. The qualified Pilot knew how to make it handle as he desired.

The first time I touched the controls of an airplane in flight, it had been trimmed and adjusted (by the pilot) to fly straight and level without any input. After a minute of me holding the controls, we were going up and down, swerving left and right, and I had no sense as to how to correct it.

The idiot (me) who had no sense of how to make it do the RIGHT things is a specific Corrupting Influence who was offered limited access to the controls. God is the Pilot (Owner, Designer, Builder, Maintenance Chief, etc.,) the Airplane is the Human Person, and the Corrupting Influence is the Adversary (Satan's influence!) God has allowed the Adversary a certain level of control to test the subject, and to give him options. (read Job, Chapters 1 & 2)

... Free will doesn't exist unless we somehow have the ability to wrest from God the ability to turn our hearts. The existence of will is not contested, only free will...

Very important to the discussion is the question, "Free Will to do what?" If there is free will, and there are laws of nature, there is a limit to everything. If we have unlimited free will, we may decide things that are against God, and He would not be able to prevent it. If we are limited to exercising our will in areas He allows, we narrow the discussion to WHAT IS ALLOWED BY GOD?

Often, I would ask the following question of someone who does not see the limits that are clearly placed on man, and say to the person, "If you have free will, and wish to fly (as just about everyone who ever lived has thought about it at some time,) how about flying over that tree or electric power line right there, right now!" This is always met with an incredulous expression on the face of the person. How is that relevant they think (but usually are not ready to say!) If our "Free Will" is limited, what are we limited to? Our Free Will is limited to doing what we are ABLE to do!

 

[JM]

If our "Free Will" is limited, what are we limited to? Our Free Will is limited to doing what we are ABLE to do!

Yup. Limited by sin to sin.