Of course you can prove that all, or most "free-willers" hold to the belief that God will not violate man's will?
I can quote you Ryrie, Chafer, and Geisler if you want, but we'll just get into an endless back and forth. Most free willers that I know personally understand the problem with their stated position vs. the theology of their position. I have a friend who holds to the free will position. He believes that God does draw the individual, but the individual has to make the choice to believe. God will not make them believe. If God does, then there really is no free will in salvation, at least in the way my friend believes. Of course, he rejects the Mongergist view of soteriology. His way of dealing with it? "It's a mystery that none of us can explain. I'm fine with God knowing how it works." His answer is what frustrates me. I think my friend is giving a royal cop-out. You can use the "mystery" defense on any theological topic. It doesn't really advance the discussion.
I could say the problem for Calvinists is they believe God created evil and caused the fall of Adam, a belief they cannot reconcile with total depravity.
Except that James 1:13 refutes that notion. We also know that God is holy (Lev. 20:26; 1 Pet. 1:16), and that God is without sin (2 Cor. 5:21). The creature is responsible for his own sin, and cannot make a charge against God that he was created thus (Rom. 9:14-24). If the charge can be made against anyone for allowing sin in the world, Adam gets the blame. Adam was the only true moral free agent ever created and ruined that status through his disobedience. Adam, as our federal head, acted as our fair and just representative and handed down the status of "sinner" to his posterity. The doctrine of Total Depravity is held intact because everyone is born in a state of sin because of what our federal head did on our behalf.
The OP quoted someone anonymously, from another forum, then attributed their beliefs to an entire group of people here on BB, identified by the OP as free-willers, a term I've never seen anyone here embrace. That is dishonesty.
I am not so much concerned about the individual quoted in the OP as I am about the theology involved. There are certain posters in here who go apoplectic when you use any term or label to describe their position. I've grown weary of their constant whining, so I tune them out. I think you know me. I speak for myself. I can care less whether anyone agrees or disagrees me. I mean every word of that. I don't type with anger, malice, or disrespect. Because I have done the research, I am confident in my beliefs. Now, you may call me dishonest, divisive, unethical...whatever pejorative you can come up with. I used to get upset about those things. Now I see the humor in them. So, I will use term free willer, Arminian, Synergist interchangeably, and if someone doesn't it like...well....they can put me on ignore. I'm no longer going to defer to crybabies.
P.S. Edited to fix typos.
