Featured The misleading arguments against Free-Will - revisited

In a previous thread, @Revmitchell presented the following OP. I didn't present in that thread, nor did I read through all the responses but considered that his presentation set out in the OP did need a bit more consideration.

Here is what he wrote with some of my own remarks between paragraphs.

Revmitchell:
What has been happening and even recently is that what is referred to as "Free-Will" is often misrepresented and then argued against based on the misrepresentation. This is a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. The "Idea of Free-Will" is presented as being divorced from God's plan and purposes and set up as strictly something man does on his own without God at all. I suppose it is believed that in order for it to truly be free will then it has to be. Maybe that is a legitimate argument. Either way misnomer or not the position of those who reject the reformed definition of election are still being misrepresented.​

Actually, free(dom) of the will has been best defined by Jonathan Edwards as “…That by which the mind chooses any thing. The faculty of the will, is that power, or principle of mind, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.”

There is no other better definition that I have found that encompasses the philosopher presentations and even those of various religious presentations.

It is NOT as straw man argument as you propose, but the long standing view of which the philosophers of note (Voltare, Locke, and others of the previous centuries constructed formable works in which Marx and others shaped social change).

Revmitchell:
As we Traditionalists see in scripture, God determined that He would provide faith (Romans 10:17) through His inspired written word, the gospel (Romans 1:16). That gospel, the authors ability to write it (I Peter 1:20), the value of the truth in it (Psalm 19:7), the strength of the truth in it (Psalm 19:9), the power of the truth in it (Hebrews 4:12). God did that. The primary source for our faith has been provided by God. Without it we cannot have faith. We would be left to ourselves to die without God now and for eternity.​

You state “God determined that He would provide faith…” and then diminished the statement by presenting God as merely the “primary source of our faith has been provided by God.” These are not the same and bring a disconnect to your thinking that is not repairable. Either God IS the provider of faith, or that Gos is merely the “primary source” of which there are other sources available. You cannot present both without presenting one as false.

Revmitchell:
As Traditionalists we see in scripture, God determined who would be His via election (Ephesians 1:4). This election is not individualistic. It wasn't with the nation of Israel and it never has been. Election is described as pertaining to those who are in Christ. God determined that those who believe would be in Christ (John 1:12). Since God determined that there can be no argument made that somehow man's will becomes a determining factor when God determined man should have the ability to choose or not to choose Him. God determined that belief comes first. God determined that not man. God determined man's ability, man's necessary response to the gospel, God determined the outcomes of man's response. No one, not reformed brethren nor anyone else gets to minimize that determination made by God in order to prop up a strawman. God determined our response. God does not have to sit and wait for man to will his own salvation, God determined that decision.​

There really is no grand argument for there are Calvinists that teach both the corporate and individual election views. That you show that the determination of salvation is by God and not by human innate volition, then there is little resistance.

When have reformed ever “minimized that determination” is made by God? That is part and parcel of the reformed thinking.

Glad you see it as the traditional thinking, and not some anomaly of late bloom.

Revmitchell:
Those who would jump on the next verse in John ch 1. vs. 13 and yank the word "will" out of its context in order to fit into a presupposition miss the intent of the author. The word will is not in the context of whether man determines his own salvation. It is in the context of how the Jews saw salvation. John was not working to fend off Arminians he was addressing Jews who thought that being a descendant of Abraham (the blood)(Matt 3:9) following the "law" (the flesh)(Romans 9:32), and being related to a patriarchal head (the will) was the means of salvation.​

The “will” used in John 1 is used twice. There is the will of the flesh and the will of man. In BOTH cases it is used in the form of desires and acting upon the impulses of the flesh - emotional driven and physical need driven.

It is not used as “relating to a patriarchal head” or some other society construction norm. To consider such being the meaning does not conform to the presentation of the rest of John as the Christ being "the only way, truth and life."

As a result, you totally dismiss the true intent of John. Who was not merely writing to Jews, but spent the larger portion focusing his writing upon the typical gentile thinking in contrast to the teaching of the Christ. He used (of course) the statements of Christ and discourse that took place, but ultimately, John is (imo) the most Gentile focused of all the gospel accounts.

Revmitchell:
Now one may disagree with some or all of this but to say that in our belief we are self determine or that God must wait on us to determine our own salvation is a strawman, it is uncharitable, and completely false. It is completely God and no strawman otherwise can change that.​

What Calvinist present that God waits on us to determine our own salvation?
Is that not an argument from the Armenian view?

What Calvinist present that “God must wait upon us (humankind)” concerning salvation?
Is that not an argument from the Armenian view?

You certainly do like to use the term, “straw man,” in your presentations.

What you have presented is basically support for the Calvinistic view rather than the typical modernistic traditional Armenian view projected on the BB.

I find that somewhat surprising, yet by labeling it the “traditional” view, then it would be more aligned with the doctrines of grace, for Calvinistic thinking is the traditional view of Baptists.

 

Really?

So, you post a straw man to discuss the use of straw men?

 

By refuting (in parts) your post, and showing where you were also in agreement with some "calvies" thinking your attempts at building "straw man" really didn't achieve what you desired.

 

The definition I presented from Edwards is the common view held by everyone.
If you were working from some other unknown definition that is not common, then who knows what your real statement relies upon?

This definition is commonly presented on the BB by those who argue against "calvies," despite your claims to the contrary. It was not misrepresented by the calves, but your claim of it being a misrepresentation of the non-calvies thinking is certainly a straw man.

So, yea, I was correct.

 

However, I pointed out that what YOU posted was inaccurate. Your attempt to redefine the message of free will was NOT what is commonly held.

Actually, free(dom) of the will has been best defined by Jonathan Edwards as “…That by which the mind chooses any thing. The faculty of the will, is that power, or principle of mind, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.”​

It was you using the very straw man argument that you were accusing the calvies of making.

This took place in the very first paragraph.

Now you attempted to side step by using the term "traditional" but by the end of refuting your post, it was shown how the "traditional" was actually closer to calvinistic thinking that what you were trying to present. Therefore, another straw man use by you in attempting to build some kind of exposure of straw man arguments used by Calvies that failed.

 

@Revmitchell,
You also did the same thing with the use of the word "will." You attempted to build an argument based upon what you desired, rather than what the word actually means.

Again, you were using a straw man technique, that just didn't work.

 

From your original OP:

What has been happening and even recently is that what is referred to as "Free-Will" is often misrepresented and then argued against based on the misrepresentation. This is a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. The "Idea of Free-Will" is presented as being divorced from God's plan and purposes and set up as strictly something man does on his own without God at all. I suppose it is believed that in order for it to truly be free will then it has to be. Maybe that is a legitimate argument. Either way misnomer or not the position of those who reject the reformed definition of election are still being misrepresented
​

See the attempt at building an argument “based on misrepresentation,” in which you make no counter proper representation, and even though stating you “suppose” the representation portrayed is as “it has to be” (which suggests the representation is accurate), you still present that those who represent the reformed as bring misrepresentation of the view of free will of the non-reformed and by extension “traditionalists.”


By showing a commonly accepted definition in which your statement about misrepresentation is shown as being an inaccurate premise, the misrepresentation was refuted.

Would you care to express what you would present as a working definition of free(dom) of the will?

 

Ok, but you have yet to present what you consider is a working definition, and yet you did agree that the calvies representation is “as it has to be.” One cannot make a claim of straw man with out providing proof.

If you want to prove calvies present a straw man argument, you must present what is factually verifiable that the reader may have footing on which to appropriately compare and contrast. This is just as I did by quoting Edwards in my initial posting.

 

Then by what authority do you present the calvies misrepresent the thinking of the typical non calvie free will?

I am not asking for your own doctrine, I am asking for what you consider is the doctrine held by the typical non calvie.

There must be something from which is presented as a standard from which the claims of “straw man” may be either supported or refuted.

In other words, the straw man must be seen and verified as being made of straw, or at least one who works in the straw industry.

Does this not seem reasonable?