God won't violate man's will?

[CrowCross]

CrowCross said:
The Father has to grant you the ability to come to Christ Jesus.

Would you explain this please?

John 6:65 is where the quote came from.

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, look up the classical argument of the Arminian about God violating our wills. See, I use to be a Classical Arminian. They teach that a sinner needs Prevenient Grace first, but this Prevenient Grace is not effectual in saving anyone. I challenge this teaching when I was a Arminian. They couldn't give a adequate answer. If God's Prevenient Grace doesn't save anyone, then what does? This is the crux or core question to ask. It comes down to the activity of man that ultimately saves him, not God's Grace. The Arminians claim that this Prevenient Grace given by God places the sinner in a position between Life and Death to choose, but note the sinner is not fully regenerated by the Spirit. They are partially regenerated to understand what's at stake. But if one understands by the illumination of the Spirit, why wouldn't everyone want to chose to be saved? They have to try and explain that God will not violate man's will. To do so, will violate man's will and God will have to drag them into heaven kicking and screaming against their wills. But the odd thing CrowCross is that Classical Arminianism teaches Total Depravity in that without God's regenerating them no one would be saved.

The Reformed doctrine of irresistible Grace or better yet effectual Grace same concept. Is the problem people have with Irresistible Grace which is they think people have no choice in the matter. This is the argument not only Arminians make but others do as well. That God drags people into heaven kicking and screaming against their wills. So then comes the obvious question to be asked. If both Arminians and Calvinist agree that Grace must precede conversion, why do the Arminians claim that God cannot violate their wills. By the very action of Prevenient Grace coming prior to any decision, shows without it no one would be saved. The difference CrowCross in Effectual Grace God does the saving by the Regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Whereas in the Arminian position there is no such thing. Though something happens to the sinner in the Arminian position but it's not effectual in saving anyone. Contradictory in terms, I absolutely say so. It's basically up to human activity that decides their fate, not in God's hands but in sinners hands; makes no sense to me.

Anyway, here's an excerpt from Arminius himself on the will of man; enjoy and keep doing your homework.

"But in his lapse and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good: but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections, or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good."

Now, ponder upon these words of Arminius for minute.​

Yes, absolutely!

I must have missed the "kicking and screaming" part. It makes no sense to me why anyone would use that in their argument.

 

[Josheb]

Indeed they are.

For Arminius (and most of his followers), a person must be graced by the Spirit of God, (prevenient grace) in the overcoming of the depraved nature so that the person may be freed to believe in Christ Jesus, if he or she will.
If this is accomplished and not resisted, then the person is justified and regenerated. There is a big difference here. Again, points to man's ability. man, made able.

Yes, they must be enabled to believe (on their own or their own belief) instead of changed and given belief (both monergistically).

They teach, sinners must be enabled by God because they are totally and utterly depraved.

So do Cals. We simply define "enabled" differently.

Calvinism teaches man is totally depraved and cannot be enabled while in the fallen nature, his nature must me changed. The sinner must be crucified first.

Regeneration (and crucifixion) are enablings. Again, the angel is in the details.

I believe you would have a hard time pointing this teaching of Calvin out because I do not believe he teaches such.

And I think a little thought should be put into this because the alternative is God did not foresee any of it. That is going to contradict WCF Article 3 and a pile of other Articles.

To forsee this faith is the obvious outcome because God is Almighty and soverigne and chooses His elect.

Yep. God foresaw His outcome because He monergistically made it so. Again, the problem is one of ambiguity. Arms use identical or similar language but mean entirely different things when doing so. It's like trying to discuss Jesus with a JW or LDS. They use the same word, "Christ" that we do but mean something entirely different. There is no way God did not foresee what God ordained. That is self-contradictory (or it compromises the premise of omniscience).

To say election is based on forseen faith points to man's ability.

No. God can foresee HIS election based on His work. Again, the same word "foresee" is used but used with entirely different meaning and if the differences is not noted then it sounds like the two agree.

If God did not elect an individual, he would never have faith to see.

LOL! If God did not elect an individual, then God could not and would not foresee it.

Scripture is Christcentric and never points or puts any emphasis on man, nor his ability.

I completely agree.

So, in Calvinism (and scripture for that matter), election is never based on (Arminianism) forseen faith.

I completely agree.

And not only that, but there was also Rebekah, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, Romans 9:10-11.

If election was based on a foreseen faith, then election would actually be based on something the person did

Election is based on foreseen faith, just not foreseen as the Arm defines "foreseen." Election is also based on foreseen faith, just not "faith" as the Arm defines "faith." Election is based on foreseen faith and election AND faith AND election are all monergistic, not synergistic. The angel is in the details. If this is not pointed out to the Arm then they think the Cal is contradicting himself.

Point out the fact the Arminius was an adherent of Augustinian Total Depravity. That first step will split a large portion of self-styled Arms off from the conversation because their protest will prove they aren't actually Arminian; they're Pelagian. Of those accepting Total Depravity (and Arminius' adherence to that doctrine) the logic then necessarily and inescapably defines and limits the will we're debating to a sinful-only will. That will divide a large portion of the remaining Arms because they'll acknowledge the flesh, the mind, and the conduct are all sinful but not the will. That protest will, again, reveal that portion of the self-styled Arms to actually be Pelagian. What remains will acknowledge what we call the "sinful nature" (a term nowhere found in the manuscripts) includes the will, or volition. That then will necessarily lead to the inescapable fact that prevenient moment MUST inescapably and irrefutably change the sinner at a volitional level and NOT merely create a space of objectivity or objective liberty.

God has changed the sinner BEFORE the sinner chooses faith, asserts faith, or professes any faith, and He has done so at the point or level of volition. How was that change made? By grace. By the Spirit. If they're honest and forthcoming that will be the answer and then the next step is..... regeneration precedes faith. A change in the will, in the mind, in the affect, in the spirit occurs by the Spirit at work in the sinner, AND it occurs causally for the purpose of that confession.

That's monergism.

The point being that 1) the sinner's will is irrelevant , and 2) if you walk them through their own language they can be brought to #1.

The sinner's will is irrelevant.

If God cannot violate man’s will, why do Arminian's pray for God to save them? Are Arminians confused?

Shouldn't you rather beg the person to believe?

The sinner's will is irrelevant. The premise "God cannot violate man's will," is a red herring. It sounds reasonable and rational, but it is not; it is utterly fallacious. If and when the red herring is confronted with something like, "Got scripture for that?" then another fallacy ensues.

Ad hominem


The questions of the op are valid only if the premise on which they are built is valid and it is not. It was your intent to show the premise incorrect, yes?

 

[Carbon]

CrowCross said:
The Father has to grant you the ability to come to Christ Jesus.

John 6:65 is where the quote came from.

And He was saying, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:65.

Would you show me where or how you get that from this verse? I don't see it.

It just may be something I haven't seen before. But I am curious.

Thanks

 

[Carbon]

I must have missed the "kicking and screaming" part. It makes no sense to me why anyone would use that in their argument.

Im not sure where the kicking and screaming came from. Someone must have crossed some wires at one time.

 

[Josheb]

I'd also like to point out that Predestination has existed from eternity.

And everything God predestined God foresaw.

Scripture teaches God chose us before the foundations of the world were laid. just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love Eph 1:4.
Grace was given us before all ages as well. Not because of anything we have done. who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was granted to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 1 Tim 1:9.

It operated in the very beginning of God's work, but there is no inward difference in the predestined until salvation was actually applied. Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest. Eph 2:3.

Yep

Because by nature we were like the children of wrath.
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11

This is where context and qualification are in order because Calvinism does not teach God made dead people or trash. When scripture says we are "by nature" objects of wrath the "nature" is not God's nature and neither is it the good and sinless nature with which God originally made humanity. The "by nature" part is the nature caused by sin and 1) God is not the author of sin and 2) sin entered the world (and humanity along with it) long after the sixth day. This is a very important distinction and it needs to be made because it is not clarified and explained then we leave the synergist incorrectly thinking 1) God intentionally made bad stuff, 2) our view of God is that He makes bade stuff and calls it "good," and 3) we contradict ourselves.

We cannot say, "by nature" and not explain that.

Before salvation put nothing in any of us, but it all lies hidden in God [w]ho predestines.

Yet what God ordained from eternity did not author sin, violate the human will or do violence to the contingencies of secondary causes. Before sin entered the world there was no salvation from sin needed and God did not author sin.

We have to be internally consistent.

God foreknew the event of Genesis 3:6 without being its author. God foreknew the event of Adam's disobedience without doing violence to the will of Adam or Eve. He could have done so, but He did not. Sin, on the other hand was indeed, egregiously violent and violating. Sin's effect is due to God's design, but God did not author sin or do violence to the human will when He ordained all things from eternity. God is sovereign, not totalitarian. Sin is totalitarian but not sovereign. Very big and very important distinctions to be made.

More importantly, salvation is not a contingency. Salvation was always going to happen. Before the world was made Jesus was foreknown as the prefect blemish-free sacrifice (in an eternity before time began and sacrifices did not exist). Jesu is not an afterthought. Salvation is not an afterthought. God di not "foresee" AND THEN say, "O! I gotta do something about that. That sin thing is a problem! Here, let me make a salvation that'll fix that thing."

"And let Me make it dependent upon the dead and enslaved corrupt will of the dead slave."

​

Salvation existed eternally. It existed long before it was temporally needed. The sinner's will is irrelevant.
.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, they must be enabled to believe (on their own or their own belief) instead of changed and given belief (both monergistically).

So do Cals. We simply define "enabled" differently.

Regeneration (and crucifixion) are enablings. Again, the angel is in the details.

And I think a little thought should be put into this because the alternative is God did not foresee any of it. That is going to contradict WCF Article 3 and a pile of other Articles.

Yep. God foresaw His outcome because He monergistically made it so. Again, the problem is one of ambiguity. Arms use identical or similar language but mean entirely different things when doing so. It's like trying to discuss Jesus with a JW or LDS. They use the same word, "Christ" that we do but mean something entirely different. There is no way God did not foresee what God ordained. That is self-contradictory (or it compromises the premise of omniscience).

No. God can foresee HIS election based on His work. Again, the same word "foresee" is used but used with entirely different meaning and if the differences is not noted then it sounds like the two agree.

LOL! If God did not elect an individual, then God could not and would not foresee it.

I completely agree.

I completely agree.

Election is based on foreseen faith, just not foreseen as the Arm defines "foreseen." Election is also based on foreseen faith, just not "faith" as the Arm defines "faith." Election is based on foreseen faith and election AND faith AND election are all monergistic, not synergistic. The angel is in the details. If this is not pointed out to the Arm then they think the Cal is contradicting himself.

Point out the fact the Arminius was an adherent of Augustinian Total Depravity. That first step will split a large portion of self-styled Arms off from the conversation because their protest will prove they aren't actually Arminian; they're Pelagian. Of those accepting Total Depravity (and Arminius' adherence to that doctrine) the logic then necessarily and inescapably defines and limits the will we're debating to a sinful-only will. That will divide a large portion of the remaining Arms because they'll acknowledge the flesh, the mind, and the conduct are all sinful but not the will. That protest will, again, reveal that portion of the self-styled Arms to actually be Pelagian. What remains will acknowledge what we call the "sinful nature" (a term nowhere found in the manuscripts) includes the will, or volition. That then will necessarily lead to the inescapable fact that prevenient moment MUST inescapably and irrefutably change the sinner at a volitional level and NOT merely create a space of objectivity or objective liberty.

God has changed the sinner BEFORE the sinner chooses faith, asserts faith, or professes any faith, and He has done so at the point or level of volition. How was that change made? By grace. By the Spirit. If they're honest and forthcoming that will be the answer and then the next step is..... regeneration precedes faith. A change in the will, in the mind, in the affect, in the spirit occurs by the Spirit at work in the sinner, AND it occurs causally for the purpose of that confession.

That's monergism.

The point being that 1) the sinner's will is irrelevant , and 2) if you walk them through their own language they can be brought to #1.

The sinner's will is irrelevant.

The sinner's will is irrelevant. The premise "God cannot violate man's will," is a red herring. It sounds reasonable and rational, but it is not; it is utterly fallacious. If and when the red herring is confronted with something like, "Got scripture for that?" then another fallacy ensues.

Ad hominem


The questions of the op are valid only if the premise on which they are built is valid and it is not. It was your intent to show the premise incorrect, yes?

Either we are talking over each other or we will just have to agree to disagree. And agreeing to disagree is okay. This would only make two things we disagree on. so far anyway. Haha, not to bad.

 

[Carbon]

And everything God predestined God foresaw.

And continues to see.

 

[ReverendRV]

Either we are talking over each other or we will just have to agree to disagree. And agreeing to disagree is okay. This would only make two things we disagree on. so far anyway. Haha, not to bad.

THE LIST OF RULES FOR PRIVATE DEBATE

1) This is the Private Debate Board; only the agreed upon Participants are invited to Debates occurring here, though Members can Start their own Debate Threads. Before a Debate starts, all Participants should acknowledge they've read these Rules. Topics should be clearly defined, and pertain to Calvinism's Doctrines; or closely related Topics. Pasting a Linked Sentence or small Paragraph is allowed. Theology is a Valid form of Argumentation, and will not be called Eisegesis. A Verbatim Verse is not needed to Score Points, though Prooftexts ARE Biblical and will be allowed in a Debate. We all should know our Bible; if your Opponent alludes to a Verse without giving you a Citation, claiming no Scripture was given is out of bounds. Do not Arbitrarily dismiss your Opponent's Position. Bald Assertions as Answers, are Fallacious; such as, 'All Calvinism is Hyper Calvinism'. Staying on Topic is necessary, and changing the Subject can be considered a Foul (IE changing a Topic from Unconditional Election to Unconditional Reprobation, etc). Fouls may also be called for Rudeness, long Posts, not answering questions, etc; anything your Moderator considers to be out of Order under these ten Rules...

2) The volunteer Moderator should check in daily, to moderate per request; or in Fairness, moderate of his own Volition. CCAM Forum Rules apply. Per CCAM's Statement of Faith, Evangelicalism will be considered Orthodox...

3) The Debaters will jointly choose their Moderator from CCAM Members. If a request for Moderation is made, both Debaters should wait for Moderation before proceeding; to keep from overwhelming the Moderator. The Moderator is expected to be very Fair, and not Favor friend over foe...

4) The Pro Position goes first by asking a question. Turns will only be taken after each Debater agrees on the answer to a question, or after the Moderator judges an answer to a question. New arguments won't be presented in a rebuttal; please keep your responses Short and Consise. If the Debaters choose a different Format of Debate, and other Rules; this should be made clear from the start, in the OP of their Debate Thread. No changes in Format/Rule will be allowed during the Debate, unless the Debaters AND the Moderator agree; so choose your Moderator wisely...

5) All participant's Scores start at Zero. The Moderator will Score the Debate by adding a singular point for an answer he Fairly Declares to have Won the Turn, and by subtracting points for each Broken Rule in a turn; even if keeping Score means someone moves into the Negative. The Moderator will not Add a Point when Participants agree, nor when he feels a Turn falls short; then he will end the Turn...

6) Failing to answer a Yes or No question will result in a Warning, afterward Fouls are called for every subsequent failure to answer any Yes or No question; even if the Score moves into the Negative. Quitting a Debate is a Forfeit. Not Posting for a week is a Forfeit. If the Moderator declares a Strawman, it will result in a Warning; then Fouls as needed. Five Fouls of any Nature will result in a Loss. Conceeding ends the Debate. Participants will not agree to disagree; if so, the Moderator will declare the Debate a No Contest...

7) In Case of a tie, the Moderator will declare the Debate a Stalemate, and it's accepted by all participants. Once the Moderator gives his final Ruling, a Debate cannot continue. If the Participants want to continue, a new Debate is required; and the Moderator can then be substituted...

8) Each Debater will agree to Mind the Moderator, and accept the Moderator's Scores/Ruling. This is not Court or a Council; the Moderator isn't your Advocate, nor is he to be a Tyrant. The Moderator will avoid helping a Debater answer a question during the Debate. The Moderator can hurry-up the Debate, even decide to return to the question later; or not allow an irrelevant question. If a Debater's Argument depends on a question, satisfy the Moderator...

9) If a Debater feels wronged by the Moderator of a Private Debate, report it to a Forum Administrator. Please wait to Report until after the Debate; unless Others intervene or harass you. The Administration will judge the Moderator, and if found unfair; he should be rejected from moderating future Private Debates. Your Moderator will have broken CCAM Rule #18, and face the Consequences for it...

10) If you don't want to abide by these Rules, please Post elsewhere. Have Fun, Love your Brother; and Glorify God...

Lol?

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-list-of-rules.1356/post-53951

 

[Josheb]

.................He as a God who hides himself is the root...................

He has not hid Himself from the redeemed.

 

[Josheb]

And continues to see.

Yes, but technically "continues" is incorrect. Eternity is extra-temporal. God sees. The "fore" is for the benefit of those inside creation (where time, before and after, cause and effect, exist), not external to it.

 

[Carbon]

And everything God predestined God foresaw.

Yep

This is where context and qualification are in order because Calvinism does not teach God made dead people or trash. When scripture says we are "by nature" objects of wrath the "nature" is not God's nature and neither is it the good and sinless nature with which God originally made humanity. The "by nature" part is the nature caused by sin and 1) God is not the author of sin and 2) sin entered the world (and humanity along with it) long after the sixth day. This is a very important distinction and it needs to be made because it is not clarified and explained then we leave the synergist incorrectly thinking 1) God intentionally made bad stuff, 2) our view of God is that He makes bade stuff and calls it "good," and 3) we contradict ourselves.

We cannot say, "by nature" and not explain that.

Yet what God ordained from eternity did not author sin, violate the human will or do violence to the contingencies of secondary causes. Before sin entered the world there was no salvation from sin needed and God did not author sin.

We have to be internally consistent.

God foreknew the event of Genesis 3:6 without being its author. God foreknew the event of Adam's disobedience without doing violence to the will of Adam or Eve. He could have done so, but He did not. Sin, on the other hand was indeed, egregiously violent and violating. Sin's effect is due to God's design, but God did not author sin or do violence to the human will when He ordained all things from eternity. God is sovereign, not totalitarian. Sin is totalitarian but not sovereign. Very big and very important distinctions to be made.

More importantly, salvation is not a contingency. Salvation was always going to happen. Before the world was made Jesus was foreknown as the prefect blemish-free sacrifice (in an eternity before time began and sacrifices did not exist). Jesu is not an afterthought. Salvation is not an afterthought. God di not "foresee" AND THEN say, "O! I gotta do something about that. That sin thing is a problem! Here, let me make a salvation that'll fix that thing."

"And let Me make it dependent upon the dead and enslaved corrupt will of the dead slave."

​

Salvation existed eternally. It existed long before it was temporally needed. The sinner's will is irrelevant.
.

It seems so many people try so hard to explain God's sovereignty in these matters. We all try so hard to protect God as if He cannot do that Himself.
There is one thing I always notice people seem to forget or just do not know. This is God's world, God's people, He decides what is good or bad. All things are for His glory.
If Adam sinned because the devil tempted them, it wasn't behind God's back. God knew the devil was in the garden, as he needed permission to be there. What seems for bad, God means for good more often than we know. And there are things which are part of God's secret council, where we do not belong. All things are according to plan.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, but technically "continues" is incorrect. Eternity is extra-temporal. God sees. The "fore" is for the benefit of those inside creation (where time, before and after, cause and effect, exist), not external to it.

God sees continually. Technically, he is not subject to time. He created time.

 

[Josheb]

Either we are talking over each other or we will just have to agree to disagree.

I hope to clarify the important details. I don't have a clue why anything post would be construed to be "talking over." Where agreement exists with whatever I've posted a simple "Yes," "Amen," or "I agree," works. I cannot know where we might agree to disagree where no disagreement exists or is known to exist.

Clarifying the details.

And agreeing to disagree is okay.

Well, if you cite something specific I have posted that is considered wrong and then prove it to me I'll either change my position or agree to disagree.

This would only make two things we disagree on. so far anyway. Haha, not to bad.

Two things of disagreement is not too bad. What are the specific two things upon which we disagree?

 

[Josheb]

God sees continually. Technically, he is not subject to time. He created time.

Is that not what I posted in different words?

 

[Carbon]

Well, if you cite something specific I have posted that is considered wrong and then prove it to me I'll either change my position or agree to disagree.

Okay.

Two things of disagreement is not too bad. What are the specific two things upon which we disagree?

That would be sanctification and Tolal depravity

 

[Josheb]

It seems so many people try so hard to explain God's sovereignty in these matters. We all try so hard to protect God as if He cannot do that Himself.
There is one thing I always notice people seem to forget or just do not know. This is God's world, God's people, He decides what is good or bad. All things are for His glory.
If Adam sinned because the devil tempted them, it wasn't behind God's back. God knew the devil was in the garden, as he needed permission to be there. What seems for bad, God means for good more often than we know. And there are things which are part of God's secret council, where we do not belong. All things are according to plan.

Yes, but what God knows and what God causes are often two different things. No matterhow we say it we must be consistent with WCF 3.1.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, but what God knows and what God causes are often two different things. No matterhow we say it we must be consistent with WCF 3.1.

Of course. I agree.

 

[Mr GLee]

He has not hid Himself from the redeemed.

I would offer

Without parables the signified or spiritual unseen understanding. Christ spoke not through his prophet Jesus Revealing the mystery of faith to the redeemed. In that way parable are designed to teach us how to walk by His faithfulness. Faith the unseen eternal understanding.

In that way I would offer study to learn how to rightly divide the parables (prophecy) The apostles' struggled against the mysteries of our faith full God . On one occasion after a series of parables he rebuked them and said to them they knew not what manner of spirit they were of. The spirit of natural unconverted mankind

Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.

Christ by faith teaches us his understanding

 

[Ladodgers6]

Yes, they must be enabled to believe (on their own or their own belief) instead of changed and given belief (both monergistically).

So do Cals. We simply define "enabled" differently.

Would you agree that all sinners are in bondage to sin? This means without God's Irresistible Grace or (Effectual Grace) nobody would be saved. Preaching of the Gospel is a calling to God's people (The Elect) and they come forth out of the darkness; they believe, trust and follow Jesus. God's word is alive that breaths life into God's people, regenerating them with the Holy Spirit; renewing the minds and hearts of God's elect.

There's no place between life and death where the sinner is placed in limbo to make a decision. That decision was already made by our representative head in the garden. In Adam everyone is doomed to death and punishment due in full by the imputation of Adam's sin. We now need a Remedy, a cure, a Savior, we need Grace & Mercy. But Grace & Mercy cannot be earned it can only be given. No human activity can achieve favor with God.

Faith is also a gift along with the free gift of righteousness through the One Man; Christ Jesus. It's his activity that saves, not anything we do or will do. The fallacy is that people think Christ is not enough and we need to make a choice and help Christ where he couldn't. That's how amazing the Gospel truth is, that the Gospel says done; whereas the Law says do! This is why Paul called God's Grace & Mercy, rich, and as deep as the ocean.​