The misleading arguments against Free-Will

Fair enough, but to be honest, I don't undesrtand what this thread is about other than you making some claims about others that are strawman arguments saying they are making strawman arguments about you.

In short, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY SAYING.

 

Didn't even attempt to address my point, which was that salvation is not a gift that God places "hopefully in a well-trafficked area" where people might find it. It's out there in the public. Moreover, God commands Christians to spread the gospel. Instead you revert to the Calvinist argument script.

 

But what about people who don't have access to the Gospel? You are glossing over that. I started a whole thread on it and nobody on your side of the aisle can give an answer about it. The only one that came close was @robycop3 posting flat heresy.

 

#5.

Some of us, most, I'd say, understand it and reject it.

 

You have not demonstrated an understanding of it on this board.

 

Whole other topic, and has nothing to do with the answer that Particular was seeking as to why his metaphor was lousy. I answered that.

Where is this thread? I might have a crack at it. I would say as a preview that if people die without hearing the gospel they are likely condemned. It is our failure not to reach these people with the gospel.

 

Ok apparently it wasn't a whole thread, my apologies. However, I would not say they are likely condemned, they are condemned. But what choice did they have?

 

They had no choice to believe the gospel because they hadn't heard the gospel. However, this is totally different than arguing against an ability to choose. They had the ability, they didn't have a specific choice with which to exercise that ability.

 

Ah, they had NO CHOICE. Why were they not sent the Gospel? Why was the choice not there?

 

They had the ability to choose, just didn't have an option to exercise that ability.

They didn't receive the gospel because we as Christians are failing to deliver it.

 

So why did God not make another way? Why are they punished for our failings? Your theology is falling apart here.

 

I don't know. Ask him when you get to Heaven.

They're not. They're being punished for being sinners. They inherited their sin from Adam and were condemned before we were born. Remember--Calvinism?

If you say so.

 

Here's the point. They are not saved because they are not chosen. If they were chosen, God would have gotten the Gospel to them and they would have believed. They had no chance to reject the Gospel.

 

I see. So God would have chosen them from eternity past. Then he would have looked down through the corridors of time and manipulated events and people to be sure a missionary went to these people he had chosen and given them the gospel. The causal loop would then be closed and complete.

Maybe they're not chosen because they're not saved.

 

How is a well trafficked area different from "out in the public?"

No one disagrees with the Great Commission, to Go make disciples.

Where is my metaphor found in the Calvinist argument script?

I have simply tried to differentiate between various Christian perspectives on the means of salvation using a metaphor.

 

I think what he is saying is that Calvinists misrepresent the non-Cal position on free will. They present stances they ascribe to free will that the non-Cal does not hold. Things like:

"You believe that you can save yourself by saying a prayer at an altar call."
"By saying you decided to believe, you are doing a good work and we all know that good works don't save anyone."
"If you believe in free-will you are saying you played a part in your salvation. You don't believe your salvation was all from God."
"You believe that the faith inside of yourself saved you."

etc.
etc.

It's the classic definition of strawman arguing along with a dash of mind reading.

 

There is a difference in saying what someone believes and taking their arguments out to their logical conclusion. When I attack your position it is not saying you believe these things, because I don't think you do, but taking your arguments out to their logical conclusion. That is not strawman.

 

If I reject what you call the "argument taken to their logical conclusion" it most certainly is a strawman argument.

I could now take some Calvinist arguments to their logical conclusion and tell you about how you believe God created evil, how you believe God created humans to be his robots, etc. I'm sure you wouldn't like it.

 

Again, no it isn't. It can't be. Look up the definition of strawman.

You can say my argument makes God to create evil but that is not the same thing as saying I believe that. I don't believe that. Just like I am sure you don't believe that your arguments create the ends we point out. All I'm saying. It's not strawman.

Honestly, a lot of people here like to scream STRAWMAN as a way to not deal with the actual argument.