Featured Did Know From eternity Who He would save or not?

He knew who would be saved because He chose who would be saved and provided the means for their Salvation.

 

There is a difference between mystery and nonsense.

If we say "in reality an Easter bunny is in charge of everything even though the Bible allows for no such thing - and the reason for that is a mystery" then we have something that is not a "mystery" at all - rather it is nonsense.

We would all agree on that example.

And it demonstrates the fact that you can not place a sanctifying covering over a nonsense idea - calling it a "mystery" to get it out of trouble.

That is true but in that case - using arguments that even Calvinists will agree with.

No Calvinist that I know of claims that God does not know the future perfectly nor do they claim that God does not have free will.

The consequence of their own premise in that case leads to the Arminian observation in their own Calvinist agreed upon constructs.

By contrast the Calvinist example above in the first example does not use Arminian agreed upon constructs.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Certainly! He chose them!

 

There is the problem with no cal claiming that "God does not have free will."

The problem rests in the difference in definition of "FREE will" as used by the Non-cal and the Cal.

Cal thinking can go along these lines:

To the Cal, "free will" is a will that constricts the decision making to that which the nature obliges. That is God is "free" within the constriction of His divine nature and cannot decide that which is contrary to that nature. God cannot sin, nor can he consider that which is sinful (be tempted).

To the Cal, the "free will" of humans is according to their nature. The fallen nature can only choose what is frail and is good only in what will eventually decay, rot, and be discarded. Therefore, it is impossible for the nature of the fallen to consider righteousness as more than a good way to live, to adopt for peaceful means, and to appoint some social justice schemes. The redemption of the cross is foolishness to them, much less something in which they would consider a viable option necessary for them to consider - even through much persuasion (Paul before Agrippa).

Who has TOTAL free will in the sense of being able to choose what is both good and righteous and with that same ability choose what is heathen and unrighteous?

Only believers have the true "freedom of the wills."

Believers are "dual natured" while in the flesh of this earthly form. The believer has the old nature, and the new nature. They may choose from either.


Therefore in summery of the Cal view:

Satan and Satanic hosts have no freedom of the will but are obliged to the nature of the fallen. They cannot attain righteousness.
God and the Heavenly hosts have no freedom of the will but are obliged to the nature of the righteous. God cannot sin.
Unsaved unrighteous heathen have no freedom of the will but are obliged to the nature of the ungodly. They cannot be self redeemed.
Believers while in their earthly form are the only ones who have freedom of the will, for they have dual natures that are at war for dominance. They may choose what is Godly or ungodly.
​

Non-Cal views go along these lines:

Non-cals, do not generally consider the will as constricted and obligatory to the forces of nature (desire, motives, impulses, needs (both physical and psychological, ...) and can make some kind of decision in which the forces of nature do not oblige.

To use an illustration: The non-cal view would consider that one can hold their breath for they have that free will. Yet, anyone knows that if you hold your breath long enough you will pass out and start to breath normally - the nature of the body conforms the decision to hold the breath to the needs of the body. The non-cal points to the decision as "free will" yet seems to discard that all such decisions will in fact conform to the nature. That no decisions of consequence can be made that do not conform to the demands of the nature.

Therefore, the non-cals must make some human constructs such as "prevenient grace" and "progressive sanctification" in order for some scheme of salvation to be developed.

However, even in such schemes, the emphasis always returns to God being the initiator, and that the will of humankind must by some miraculous work of God be "awakened" to the need of Christ; and during that ethereal suspended state between earthly and heavenly, the person has some "freedom of the will" to make a decision for or against salvation.

The Cal needs no such human contrivances superimposed upon Scriptures. Certainly some Cals do use these contrivances. But, they are totally unnecessary to view the Cal.

 

Thanks for the chuckle.

 

Yes, it was humorous to read yet another misrepresentation of a non-Cal viewpoint. And, oh my, it must have taken at least five minutes to type it all out. Waste of time.

 

1) Your first statement is illogical. If God knows the future exhaustively, then only the foreknown can occur. God could not deviate and still have perfect foreknowledge. Therefore, according to this mistaken view, God would not be free to change the future.

2) Just as it is a mystery as to why God is not the author of sin, in the Calvinist scheme of things, it is also a mystery as to why God has free will in light of exhaustive foreknowledge.

3) The Arminian view goes up the same creek, but they claim that God foreknowing something does not predestine that very thing. Therefore God knows who will be saved and who will not, but we are not predestined to salvation or damnation. How is that possible? Why it is a mystery.

 

Chuckle is all that you can do to respond as you have no substantive responses to his presentation of "free" will within the boundaries of nature.

Indeed, I have yet to read any substantive response to this argument. I have read a lot of ridicule (responses like yours) but not a single solitary Arminian has attempted to tackle this boundary of nature in reference to God's Will.

He is IMMUTABLE in regard to his intrinsic attributes, none of which can be reversed/contradicted or denied by God's "free" will. He has not FREE will to create another God. He has no FREE will to sin or to enter into a sinful inclination because of his immutable holiness.

Yet, if God's freedom of choice is restricted within immutable boundaries of His moral nature than how can Arminians argue that man is not restricted within the same framework????? Is man's will superior to God's???? Is that not really the essence of Arminianism that the human will is the final authority whereas God and demons are mere cheer leaders on the side lines helplessly hoping that the Sovereign will of man chooses one of their teams to join?

 

So show exactly what was misrepresented.

Do please, that all might see.

Feel free to copy the non-cal section of my post and expose what misrepresentation was stated.

You are obliged by your statement to prove the refutation and by representing the facts of the non-cal position.

But then what non-cal position will you pick?

Will it be consistent with all non-cal positions?

I will watch and see what you can produce.

 

I think God knows the future details - exhaustively and so do most Calvinists.

I think God has free will - and so do most Calvinists.

A lot of Arminians will also agree to these two points - though possibly not all Arminians.

This means that the Calvinist argument against free will is defeated by their own belief that God has absolute knowledge of all events past and future.

The problem is that it puts the one trying to solve the puzzle in the seat of God. Trying to figure out how God can have free will in such a context. But who ever said we were able to work out the details in God's own mind?




Therefore, according to this mistaken view, God would not be free to change the future.

Agreed - but both Calvinists and Arminians (generally speaking) are stuck with that same mystery.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Or as you said Ryan, in a previous post, stuck not with mystery but with nonsense.

Cognitive Dissonance is holding two views, each of which precludes the other.

If God knows who will be damned, then their damnation is predestined. Otherwise, God would be mistaken. If God predestines persons to sin, because foreknowledge predestines, is it just to then punish the person for the sins He predestined. To say yes, but it is a mystery is nonsense.

No matter how you slice it, both Calvinism and Arminianism arise from mistaken understandings of Scripture.

1) Matthew 23:13 teaches unregenerate men of flesh can seek God, for they were "entering" heaven.

2) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches individual election through faith, teaching our individual election is conditional and occurs during our lifetime.

3) Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, and therefore died for the whole world and not just the elect. This is demonstrated by 2 Peter 2:1.

 

Wrong.

Please ask some qualified logicians if that logic holds. It doesn't.

The proper sequence is this:

1.) Someone will be damned
2.) because God knows everything, God knows this
3.) therefore God knows who will be damned

If, however someone is not to be damned:
Then what follows is that God would have known otherwise, not that it COULDN'T have been different.

The content of what God "knows" depends upon the truth of the future event.
The truth-value of a future-tense proposition does not depend upon what God knows or doesn't know.

That's wrong.

Van, I know you think this logical assumption is self-evident and inarguable (many people do) but, I assure you it is not. It is, at minimum, debatable.

Because it doesn't.

Because God's knowledge of something is not what causes it to occur, nor does the truth-value of any proposition depend upon whether God (or anyone for that matter) is Aware of it.

The truth value of the proposition:
"Japan bombs pearl harbor Dec. 1941"
will be true regardless of whether anyone knows about it or not.
The truth of the proposition:
"Joe will mow the lawn on Saturday".
Depends upon whether it is in fact the case that on Saturday, Joe indeed mows the lawn.
If Joe does indeed mow the lawn, than assuredly God is aware of it.

If, however, the statement "Joe mows the lawn on Saturday" is false:
What follows is that God knows that Joe will not mow the lawn on Saturday..............NOT!!!!! Joe is, and always was, incapable of mowing the lawn on Saturday.

God's knowledge of a particular proposition (regardless of tensing it for time) is logically consequent to the proposition itself. You are making God's knowledge antecedent to the event. That's a mistake. A common one, but a mistake nonetheless.

 

Individual election that is conditional is "Foreseen" in foreknowledge of God. This is what the Calvinists position rejects.

The Calvinist argument is that APART from God's knowledge of the future (in ignorance of what God knows) God acts, God selects, elects, calls.

The Arminian view is that it IS in the presence of foreknowledge that God elects, calls, chooses - not in ignorance of it.

And God's foreknowledge sees the choices of the individual responding to the Gospel. The fact that human bound by time - only "see it in the past" does not stop God from "seeing it in the future". What we "See in the past" does not negate the free will of anyone that made choices in the past - same goes for God seeing the future.

in Christ,

Bob