The misleading arguments against Free-Will

Just say #4. C'mon, I know you want to!

#4

See, how easy and quick that is?

 

Back at you partner.

 

Great. I'm glad you feel no need.

 

The fact that you have to ask this question shows you aren't serious about this topic.

 

Actually no, for if there is no such thing as full free will, then non Cal theology falls apart...

 

You aren't willing to share your own beliefs and are attempting to win an argument simply through ad hominem.

 

I am a Calvinist, but I do not think that Arminianism is necessarily the same thing as semi-Pelagianism. Someone who identifies as an Arminian could hold to semi-Pelagian beliefs, but neither classic Arminianism (a.k.a. Remonstrant Arminianism as articulated in the Five Articles of Remonstrance), nor Wesleyan Arminianism, nor Reformed Arminianism is semi-Pelagian in their view of total depravity. They still believe in total depravity like Calvinists, but they disagree with us on the doctrine of irresistible grace (effectual calling). What they believe is something called “prevenient grace.” Their doctrine of prevenient grace and its necessity for it to enable a sinner to believe distinguishes them from semi-Pelagians. Semi-Pelagians do not believe man’s will is by nature the sin of sin, Remonstrant and Wesleyan Arminianism does believe in the natural bondage of man’s will to sin.

 

Perhaps the overarching term is... synergist.

 

I think one of the problems is that different people mean different things by the term “free will.” As far as that goes as something who believes in absolute divine sovereignty, absolute predestination, monergistic regeneration, etc. I find that the issue is more of what we actually mean than what terms we use. One of the issues in the election vs. free will debate is communicating what we mean. There are Arminians who misrepresent Calvinists. There are Calvinists who misrepresent Arminians. There are Arminians who misrepresent classic Arminianism. There are Calvinists who misrepresent Calvinists.

 

YUP. similar terms, different dictionaries.
Often we need to drill down to what the other means with the words used.

 

Yes, I think that would be a far assessment.

 

As I see it, that cartoon is a blasphemous caricature made from the viewpoint of someone who is bitterly against God's choosing of the sinner to salvation, Marty.

It is representative of the kinds of things that we, as believers, should never stray into.
It also has no place anywhere in polite, or even not-so-polite discussion.

I speak from the experience of having been on the delivering end, as well as the receiving end.

 

Strictly speaking, that article does not describe all "Baptists"...

Baptists have been historically "Particular", as well as "General".
Depending on the viewpoint, some say "Baptists" started out as "Particular"...some say not.

Just because someone wrote an article defending the "election is not individualistic" perspective, does not mean that all Baptists subscribe, or have subscribed to it.

Now, in my opinion, it does do a rather decent job of representing the viewpoint of basically mixing "Prevenient Grace" with "Eternal Security", as I see "Traditionlism / Provisionalism" teaching.
David Cloud's site and several others also seem to mirror what I sat under for much of my post-conversion life.

 

Not only have Baptists historically been divided on the issue of divine sovereignty in man’s salvation vs. free will, but there also have been historically some Baptists who would qualify as Pelagians as distinct from both Calvinism and Arminianism. Some Baptists went so far as denying either that all men are by nature sinners or stand condemned in Adam, and thus were Pelagian in their understanding of original sin.

 

@Noah Hirsch
I re-edited that post, but I'm not averse to having the old one quoted.

 

Right, because I haven't shared my beliefs here....what garbage....