Featured what causes/is reason some accept jesus, while others refuse him?

The cause of a choice is the chooser. A determiner makes a determination.

This question is actually a form of question begging because it presumes a deterministic response is necessary...i.e. 'something besides the chooser must have determined the choice.'

 

No it does not. You could answer any way you like. Willis does have his theological presupposition, but that does not stop you from answering the question as you deem fit.

 

Jesus said some men do not come to him because they love darkness, because their deeds are evil. Darkness conceals evil, and most criminals prefer to work under the cover of darkness.

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Evil men do not like the Word of God because it exposes and convicts them of their sin. They love their sin and do not desire to give it up.

But this is not saying men are unable to repent from evil and come to Jesus, the next verses show that very thing;

Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Some men love truth, these men come to the light and to the Word of God. They do not mind being corrected or reproved, they desire to do what God tells them to do. Therefore their works are wrought in God.

It really comes down to what men love. Some men love and desire evil, while other men desire truth and goodness.

 

I did answer the question. I said the chooser determines the choice, remember?

To press further by asking what, besides the chooser, determined the chooser's choice IS, by very definition, a fallacy called 'question begging' because it presumes determinism, the very point up for debate.

 

Does Romans 12:3 say or suggest our faith was given (instilled) via Irresistible Grace? Nope. The "measure of faith" refers to our holy calling, our ministry within the body of Christ, thus our measure of ministry within the body, referred to as the faith. Just read the following verses (Romans 12:4-6).

How are we drawn? We become aware of God's lovingkindness toward us, i.e. seeing Christ high and lifted up dying for us, and therefore we love Him because He first loved us.

Any way we are presented with the gospel is "some way." And so are all the other ways.

Paul teaches after we are cultivated, planted and watered, then God causes the increase, He alone transfers individuals from the realm of darkness (in Adam) into the kingdom of His Son (in Christ.)

Without God's revelatory grace we could not understand and have the opportunity to receive the gospel. However, we are not "enabled" by Irresistible Grace, as demonstrated by Matthew 23:13. Unregenerate men were seeking God, i.e. entering heaven, yet were blocked thus not under the influence of Irresistible Grace.

To be "of His Sheep" i.e. a worshiper of God, or open to God's revelation, is not the same as being "My Sheep." The first group (of His Sheep" are potential believers, open to the gospel of Christ) and the second group are believers who God has put spiritually in Christ.

When I mistakenly cited John 15:19 as proof our election for salvation occurred during our lifetime, for we were chosen out of this world, a Calvinist (Iconoclast) correctly pointed out Jesus was talking about His disciples, the 12, and therefore the verse was not applicable for being chosen for salvation. However, when another Calvinist mistakenly cites the verse as teaching we choose Jesus because God first individually chose us, all the other Calvinists remain strangely silent.

 

Correction. I attributed the OP to Willis, when it fact he was not the author of the OP.

Looking at the OP again I see an honest question:

Skan, it is no different than the threads you start that ask questions without first stating your position. We all know what you believe and that you are not going to accept an answer that differs from your opinion without you making a rebuttal. I see no difference in this case. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

I believe everyone who regularly engages with me on this post knows that I'm a non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist who holds to the the view of soteriology most commonly referred to as 'the corporate view of election.' No one is required (or even expected) to state their view prior to posting a question, argument or statement. I'm honestly not even sure what that has to do with my accusation of a question begging fallacy. If you are suggesting that my previous post did commit a fallacy, I'm open to that rebuttal, but I'd appreciate if you did what I have done here and actually quote what was said that was fallacious and explain why it is fallacious. Instead of making generalized, unfounded accusations which can't be rebutted, please try to back up your words with actual arguments and then maybe we can get somewhere.

But you, on the other hand, have become known for changing your particular perspective a lot...oh wait, you haven't... I guess I could make the same speculative personal accusation about you then?

Given the FACT that I was a hard core 5 pointer when I joined this forum over a decade ago, I'd say there can be a much stronger case for me being more willing to examine my views and change than you have exhibited here thus far.

Where are we? A Debate Forum...:wavey:

And what does any of this have to do with a question begging fallacy?

 

I disagree with you. Yeshua1 did the same thing that you do. You do want people to think that your questions are honest, no? Extend the same courtesy. As to the answer to Yeshua1's question, that is fair game. I just do not see a problem with the question itself regardless of his theological presupposition.

By God's grace, yes. From Catholicism, Pentecostalism, mainline Baptist Arminianism, to Reformed Theology. It is not Reformed Theology that I laud, but rather the grace of God in changing, not just my perspective, but my entire way of thinking.

Sure you could. I actually welcome it because it provides me the opportunity to testify of the truth.

It is has been thirteen years since I examined my views and left Arminianism. Since I am wholly convinced by the testimony of Scripture that Arminianism is error, why would I re-examine it?

Because I disagree with you that the question did so. As far as I am concerned it is on par with the questions you ask.

 

Let me expand on my previous answer.

Perhaps it is my personality, but I honestly do not care if I am mischaracterized or speculated about by strangers or opponents. Friends, family, and church members? Different story. I have been on the receiving end of false accusations or your garden variety gossip/speculation more times that I can recall. At first it really bothered me. But each time I found that these negative circumstances actually resulted in the truth being proclaimed. No. Those doing the negative talking were not convinced by anything I said in response. It was those who were providentially brought into the situation as witnesses and bystanders that were able to see the truth. On the BB we call them lurkers. I have never tried to convince you or anyone else on this board to change their views. I leave the convincing to God. When you and I dialog there are more people lurking than there are those who participate. I consider that a wonderful opportunity. Speculation? Accusations? They are great opportunities to proclaim the truth.

 

Herald states:

To which scandalon says:

I'd say you can't be serious that you see that as a personal 'accusation' but I know better. Herald has answered you fairly, with courtesy and hasn't personally accused. Put an end to trying to make things 'personal' when they're not.

Carry on Herald.

 

One problem with this comparison...it presumes I am the one doing the 'negative talking' and you are the one proclaiming the truth...but have you ever objectively considered that you just could be wrong on this issue... like I concluded ten years ago when I logged on to this forum as a convinced 5 pointer? Just asking...

 

Please tell me how one is to answer a fallacy except by calling it a fallacy? If the question presumes a deterministic response is necessary then I can't answer it any other way than I did. I did so respectfully and I fully explained, with an actual quote and argument, my contention. That is called a debate.

For you to make a blanket accusation that I have committed the same fallacy is useless unless you are willing to do the same thing I did and quote my fallacy and explain why it fallacious. You didn't do that and I don't believe you can. I welcome for you to prove me wrong...

The foresight faith version?

Likewise, I left Calvinism, so why make accusations about my unwillingness to change when you fit the same bill? Its an excuse for not engaging in a debate. Its actually a fallacy called "ad hominem," which means, "to the man" by which the debater makes personal comments (i.e. you will never change so why bother), rather than engage the topic.

How is asking us what determines a person's choice NOT question begging? Is like asking if someone has stopped beating their wife. It is a model example of the question begging fallacy. I can provide you with scholars who say the exact same thing if you'd like to read it from someone beside me?

 

I would answer this post but you will ignore it and won't listen to me because that is the way you are.

Does that sound like I'm making a personal statement about you?

Yes? That is because I am. Its called ad hominem and its not necessary or productive. It's just a way to avoid addressing the issue...just like you are doing now.

 

Because it was not a fallacy.

I never said you committed a fallacy, and there is no "same fallacy" because the OP is not a fallacy. His question is on par with the questions you ask. I am not judging the question. I am making an observation. You are the one who is touchy about it. That usually happens when a nerve of truth has been hit.

The "man cooperating with God" version, a.k.a. Synergism. I know you want to make an oblique entry into corporate election. I have looked into that as well and it did not sway me. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to soteriological views.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I did not accuse you. I made an observation about the type of threads you create. I simply drew a line between Yeshua1's OP and the the the type of OP you often create. They are similar, therefore it is your umbrage that is fallacious.

Uh, huh. The record of the BB will reveal I have engaged in many debates. And I stand by my assertion. I am not debating with you per se. Why? Because I am not under some false illusion that you are going to change your view. If that happens, praise God! When I debate it is because God's truth is at stake. That is greater than whoever are the debate participants.

There are time when I will not debate with you. Those times are when the subject is a rehash of something that we have debate before. Once the horse is dead why keep beating on it? Eventually enough time will elapse and the subject becomes relevant again.

You read into his question and came up with a conclusion. I disagree with your conclusion.

 

You are consumed with "I" a lot.

Debate is not negative talking. False accusations and speculation are negative talking.

Have I ever considered that I could be wrong on this issue? Of course. If I thought I was wrong I would not hold to my position.

 

Ok, so you should be able to answer this question. How did God make men able to make contra-causal choices?

 

Do you mean accusations like, "I won't engage with your debate points because I know you won't ever change."

or speculations like...

"Your questions are just a fallacious as his are." (but I don't think his questions are actually fallacious and I'm not willing to show you how your questions are fallacious)

Exactly. Why wouldn't you afford me the same standing in my perspective and engage the subject while on a DEBATE FORUM, instead of dismissing the topic on the basis that I won't change anyway?

 

What a bunch of baloney. Yeshua1 has probably asked this question half a dozen times in the past and answered it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2029200&postcount=4

If Yeshua1 had not repeatedly asked this question, you might have a point, but he has both asked and answered it many times. So Skan is correct, it is nothing but question begging.

I would ask Skan if he really thinks being engaging with Calvinists will work? I think you are very naive if you believe they will ever concede any points you make.

Note that Yeshua1 NEVER posts a single word of scripture to support his views.

 

Here is a similar dialogue between two notable scholars on this subject. Maybe they will help you understand the fallacy:

"On the one hand, indeterminists claim that we do not act without reasons. On the other hand, they deny that any reasons or other causes serve as sufficient conditions for what is chosen. But if nothing is a sufficient condition to incline the will to choose one thing over another, then how do we choose at all? If the causal influences really were at a stand-off, then we would not choose. Moreover, if causal influences are not sufficient to move the will to choose, then what is? Some indeterminists claim that a person just chooses. Fine, but on what basis? If the answer is that he or she just chooses, surely this is no explanation at all. If the indeterminist argues that the choice is made in accord with what appears to be the best reason(s), then, in fact, the act is causally determined (reasons have functioned as causes sufficient to produce the act)" (Feinberg, p. 36).

This appears to be essentially what the OP was asking and attempting to argue, right? Now, here is the scholars response:

"What you need to realize is that the drive to explain a truly free choice in this manner is really just a game of question begging because it assumes that a deterministic explanation is required.The choice between available options is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94).

 

Why all the verbosity for such a simple question? You are making a mountain out of a molehill; attempting to assign motives to Yeshua1's OP without asking him. And because I call it an honest question you have to pull out the scholar card in an attempt to enlighten me as to a supposed fallacy? Do you really want to go there? If so, why? Do you have some burning need to impress because you know how to spell "fallacy"?