Violation

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by npetreley, Jan 31, 2003.

  1. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've seen several people claim that God would not violate our free will. IMO, the biggest problem with this statement is that it elevates man's free will above God.

    But here are some things that strike me as amusing about this assertion:

    As far as I can tell, both Arminians and Calvinists agree that we all start out with a sin nature -- that is, that our will is inclined toward sin. Where we differ is in how one escapes that sin nature, whether the process is entirely of God, or if some "free will" decision is invovled.

    But if that's so, then isn't God violating our "free will" to choose sin and only sin when He does anything that would cause us to consider an alternative? If God really honored our "free will" above all else, then wouldn't he stop meddling in our fleshly desires and simply let us all go to hell? After all, that's what we freely choose before He gets in there and starts stirring up the waters. It seems to me that the Arminian God may be more subtle in His violation of our free will, but He violates it all the same.

    A second problem with this statement is that, most of the time, people assert that God would not violate our free will in order to explain why some people go to hell. Isn't it "convenient" that the person asserting this about the hell-bound happened to exercise his free will to go to heaven?

    Put another way, how many times have you ever heard a Calvinist whining about how God violated his free will and elected him to be saved? If it's such a bad thing that God would violate our "free will", then wouldn't there be more Calvinists who are outraged that they were among the elect? [​IMG]
     
  2. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is in fact the very same principle used by naturalists and those who sought in the last century to rationalise miracles away. They said that God would not violate the Laws of nature that he had put in place.

    I don't know about that. Arminians seem to believe that the will is unimpaired by the effects of sin, that one is equally able to choose God or Satan.

    I don't think that arminians would consider suasion as being a violation of free will. After all the person can choose to resist the suasion. It would only be a violation if the force of the suasion were such that the person would resist. This where we get into the whole irresistable grace thing. Arminians think iot means that God exerts a suasion such tha a person CANNOT resist. What it measn though is that a person will not resist. Ability to resist is not an issue. It is simplytrue that people do not resist the Effectual Call.

    If by that you mean we may havea case of post hoc reasoning, you may be right.

    More troubling to me however is that this emphasis on free will is wrong. People don't go to Hell becuase they choose Hell. They go to hell becuase they are sinners. Hell is simply the consequence of that condition.
     
  3. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Do you deliberately violate your own standards or rules for your children? No! Then why do you insist that God violates his standards and rules for his creation, and that by so doing he makes himself subject to man? That shows a significant lack of understanding on your part.
     
  4. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    The major problem with it is that it is a man centered doctrine. As if mans will is higher than Gods.
     
  5. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes I do. The rules for my children are not the same as the rules for me. I stay up later, for example.

    Even given that God does not need to obey the same rules as His creation, I still insist nothing of the sort. You seem to think it is an undeniable fact that God has set a "free will" rule somewhere. I know of no such rule.
     
  6. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    God gives to man the will that determines man's destiny. God's Work, including His work of 'belief' was completed on the Cross of Calvary, and all that remains is man's choice to believe or not believe.

    Like the wedding feast, everything is already done, the feast is ready for the guests to arrive. The guests are those who choose to come and not those who are forced or by some predeterminded scheme and are thus compelled without their consent by the father of the bride to come. The wedding invitation was extended by the Bride Groom to all who will come. 'Will' being the guest's decision.
     
  7. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you may be right about many if not most Arminians.

    Yet I don't see anyone crying that it is unfair that God would violate a person's free will by persuading that person to come to Christ beyond his ability to resist. I see it only as an explanation as to why a person is responsible for going to hell -- because God would not violate that person's free will to resist the persuasion.

    In other words, I find it odd that the only time one invokes this "free will violation" as a defense is when one takes a James Bondian attitude of "Live and let die." I don't see anyone arguing about how terrible it would be if God violated a person's free will in order to have mercy on them.
     
  8. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    This may be off the subject but I thought sturgman's last post brings up an interesting point.

    Generally speaking, I agree that the Arminian doctrine tends to be "man centered". However, I see Calvinism and Arminianism as two extreme views. One pushes the other deeper into it's way of thinking. As a result, one becomes biased towards the terms and thoughts of the other. "Free will" or "Choice", for example, equal "man centered" to the Calvinist while "Election" or "Sovereign Grace" equal "men are robots" to the Arminian. To me both views are dangerous because they only think in terms of the opposition. That's why the concepts of "choice" and "election" are mutually exclusive in such discussions. Are we certain this is Biblically true?
     
  9. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not believe at all that the concepts of "choice" and "election" are mutually exclusive, so I don't see your point here. I'm not strictly a Calvinist, but I get the impression that Calvinists would not see it as mutually exclusive, either.
     
  10. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, yes we are.

    The Arminian view of us as robots happen when they try to make us hypercalvinist.
     
  11. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if sturgman and I disagree, but I would say that choice and election are not mutually exclusive. I do believe the notion that we choose to believe or accept grace of our own "free will" is mutually exclusive with election.

    IMO, even that is a misrepresentation of hypercalvinism. Even if I took the extreme position to say that God forces the elect to believe and forces the non-elect to refuse Jesus, that does not produce robots. Both the saved and unsaved would still have their own personalities and wills. They simply would not be able to exercise those wills in such a way that would affect their own destinies with respect to salvation. It may have more of an emotional impact to call people robots in that case, but strictly speaking it's a misrepresentation.
     
  12. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    In other words, "choice" in the Arminian view cannot coexist with "election" in the Cavlinist view. However, the Arminian will have their own view of "election" and the Calvinist will have their own view of "choice". Both in their respective realms of thinking. Yet both see those concepets couched in terms affected by the other side's view. So one becomes bias very easily. How can one truly see clearly with a biased view?
     
  13. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exaclty the point. The Arminian pushes towards one extremity to ensure they are removed from the extremity of the other. In doing so, the opposing side views this "push" as an extermity in and of itself.
     
  14. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wait, let me see if I follow you on this.

    The Arminian side takes the extreme view that, if we are not able of our own free will to choose salvation, then we must not have any will at all and be robots. The consistent logical support for this extreme conclusion is...none. The scriptural support for this extreme conclusion is...none.

    I'm not sure what you think the Calvinist extreme view is, so I don't know where to go from here.
     
  15. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Precisely! And of course you don't see the Calvinist view as creating "robots" of human beings but that's the way many Arminans see it and thus their strong rejection of it. And I assume you may reject the Arminian view because you despise the idea of a "man centered doctrine". The problem is one view does not see themselves in the light of the other. So why change? Why rethink anything?

    My point is this all greatly affects one's understanding of the scriptures.
     
  16. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your original point was that both sides are guilty of the same thing, and pointed out the robot argument as the Arminian's non-scriptural extreme view.

    I'm still waiting for you to tell me about the non-scriptural Calvinist extreme view of Arminianism.
     
  17. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    npetreley,

    From a previous post you said...

    Since Calvinism's "election" primarily focuses upon "monergistic soteriology" - borrowed term I saw used on this board - (i.e. God alone), the result is an extreme view of "choice" itself. It's goal is to strip man of any remote possibily of getting glory (a bias view from the Arminian extreme) and thus is not necessarily born from any scripture but from a particular view of what "election" is. And "election" itself is a biased concept in Calvinism because its based upon the extreme "push" of Arminianism.

    I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth. This is just an observation.
     
  18. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Free will is not a rule, it is a condition which God gave to man in the creation. The writings of Moses contain most of the rules by which free will the condition is tempered. But, not all of God's rules are contained in scripture. For example this earth revolves around a burning star called Sol (no I don't know who named it), in accordance with God's rule of gravity. The moon revolves around this earth according to the same rule. Should that rule be broken for either body, good-by man!
     
  19. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, free will is not in scripture except as a free will offering that only the children of God can give. Show me where this is shown as a condition. You can not! There is no way you can except that you slip it in yourself. You have so much struggle over predestination, but it is all over scripture. Yet you have no trouble with free will yet it is no where in scripture!

    :confused:

    I really don't get the line of thought you have.
     
  20. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Probably because you cannot accept more than what is in the bible. You motto like that of Nicodemus seems to be "The scriptures, many of the scriptures, and nothing but the scriptures". Well there is more as Jesus indicated to Nicodemus when he said, "you are a teacher in the land and you do not know this?" Jesus expected Nicodemus to be aware of how He, Jesus, made man. But Nicodemus response told Jesus that Nicodemus was not aware. Your response indicates that you too are unaware or that you refuse to accept the totality of man. Not that man exceeds God in any way whatever, but that God has burdened man to choose in order to have Salvation. Therefore, man must have the capability to decide, free will, what to believe for himself. I am speaking of SALVATION alone, and not the whole of the Christian life. Once one believes, is saved, one is supposed to act out that belief and do the will of God henseforth. The free will choice remains man's domain. As demonstrated by Jonah, one of God's chosen prophets, free will remains man's domain. Jonah exercised his free will and chose to flee from going to Nineveh. And God sitting on his throne smilingly saying, "there goes my faithful servant Jonah doing exactly what I ordered him to do". Jonah could have saved himself much grief by simply obeying God. Where did Johah's act come from if man has no free will?.....Oh, I get it, God made Jonah flee him so that God could demonstrate for his Glory that God has control over the affairs of man....Right!

    If you refuse to believe that there is more than the scriptures, there is no truth that I post that you will believe.
     

Share This Page

Loading...