Free Will challenge

[John Mullally]

..

 

[Don Maurer]

Then you can't intelligently or accurately characterize it.

I quoted John Calvin's words. That is what Calvinism is - the systematic theology of John Calvin.

It may be just as rare to find Calvinists who properly represent Calvinism. Take this quote from John Calvin's Institutes for the Christian Religion (2207) and compare it to Reformed Theology:


"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."

Your suggestion that you quoted John Calvin's words about the issue of "will" is not true. I added your quote of John Calvin above in red. He says nothing about "will" in your quote. Again, you misrepresent Calvinism and refuse to admit it. The makes for any possible conversation on the subject impossible. You continue arguing against a straw man.

I was once an pelagian or semi-pelagian like you. When I finally read Calvinists themselves, I realized the massive amount of straw man arguments used.

I strong-maned your argument and then countered it. It wasn't that I didn't bother to understand it... I understood it and rejected it.

I'm going to use this illustration from now on and credit Calvinists with it.



If you hadn't skipped the reading you would have seen I did in fact address the sin nature.

The sin nature is CAUSED by our fear of death. Far from preventing us from choosing life, our fear of death can actually motivate us to choose life. I went on to give an actual example from scripture of someone's fear of death motivating them to choose life.

WOW, that is shockingly bad and unbiblical theology. This has "pelagianism" written all over it. Nowhere in scripture is sin nature caused by a fear of death. Please cite even one verse (or as I expect-- you will ignore this request). I call your theology here "pelagianism" because it completely fails to understand biblical spiritual death, or to use a historic Augustinian phrase... Original sin.

Death in the scripture is both spiritual and physical. Spiritual death is spoken of in passages like Ephesians 2:1, we are "dead in our sins and trespasses." Romans 5:12-21 is a passage speaking about the cause of this death. In Adam we all died (spiritually). In Adam the whole human race began its rebellion and that rebellious nature is called sin nature.

And by the way, you continually and completely fail to understand or grasp Calvinism. Your knowledge of Calvinism is painfully shallow.

 

[Don Maurer]

I posted this to my social media:

...
I am not kidding, this is the Calvinist's response to my argument:

​

"Your illustration is a perfect example of how you misrepresent Reformed soteriology. If a reformed person were to make such an illustration, it would be more like this.... If I set an fresh fruit and a pile of doggy dung on a table and offered my child that he should choose which one he wants to eat, he would make a choice, a choice according to his nature. Now if my child were a fly, his nature would be different. A fly might choose the doggy dung. Now you might whine that this is not a true choice because the nature of a human or fly will determine which choice he makes, but that is the point!" (random Reformed Calvinist)​

That's it! That is exactly why Provisionists think Calvinism maligns the character of God. No loving father would put a pile of dung on the table for their child to eat. No loving creator would create a child who likes dung and prevent them from being any other way.

No wonder you fail to read Calvinism correctly, and why you cannot read the scriptures in context, you failed to read the illustration in context. The point being made in my quote was an illustration of your view that all men begin do not return to the innocence of Adam without sin nature, or original sin, but rather the issue is why some men choose faith and others choose rejection. It is based upon the nature of the man. At this point, I doubt you will begin to address that issue.

Your accusation that I malign the character of God reminds me of Romans 9. It is identical with the objector to what Paul says. In 9:24 this objector accuses Paul of "There is no injustice with God, is there?" You are making the identical complaint that is opposite Paul in Romans 9.

Rom 5:12 NASB95 - 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned​

​

Sin came into the world THROUGH MAN.

Of course sin came into the world through man.

It was not the invention or intention of God.
The corruption was not part of God's design, nor His will. Death is God's punishment for sin. It is God's judgement for sin. Judging sin IS GOOD. We want God to be just and judge sin. We do not want evil in the world.

So let me get this... You think God wanted sin to never happen? Did God try to stop it? Maybe he tried and just could not keep sin from happening because of Adam's all powerful free will over a weak failure of a God who cannot stop the all powerful free will of man from sinning.

This is again akin to the statement made by Paul's foe in Romans 9:19, "who resists his will." You cannot read Romans 9 and say these things. You are the man in Romans 9:20 complaining "why did you make me thus." You are the man answering back to God complaining that God did not show mercy to everyone.

By the way, Gods purpose in creating a world that would fall into sin is found in Romans 9:22... he "wanted to make his power known." That is why he "endured with much patience vessels of wrath." Oh, and notice that these sinners and rebels in that text are "prepared beforehand for glory."

So then, while you say rightly that it was not God's invention, it was his intention.

If corruption was not a part of his design, then God designed very little. This is the typical Open Theistic statements that result from your theology.

Death (God's judgement for sin) is not a pile of dung.

I never said it was. In the illustration, the pile of dung is mans sinful desire, not Gods hatred of that sinful desire.

It is justice. It is good to reject evil. The options set before man are both good. It is SIN which is bad, and that was the invention of man. But God has provided mercy. You can choose to utilize God's provision of mercy or not. Either way, sin is judged - either in you or in Christ's substitutionary atonement.

Gup20, this is the end of our conversation. Your waisting my time by constant misrepresentations and by not even responded honestly to what I have said.

 

[Gup20]

Your suggestion that you quoted John Calvin's words about the issue of "will" is not true. I added your quote of John Calvin above in red. He says nothing about "will" in your quote. Again, you misrepresent Calvinism and refuse to admit it. The makes for any possible conversation on the subject impossible. You continue arguing against a straw man.

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes for the Christian Religion 2207)​

I agree with you. Calvin specifically said THEY DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL, because THEY DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE about life or death. Their choice has been "predestinated" by God. Contrast this with the Bible which says they do have a free will choice.​

​

Deu 30:19 NASB95 - 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​

It is not that Calvin's words had no bearing on free will... he was DENYING that man had a choice between life and death and instead saying that choice was not a choice set before man, but a choice determined by God before the foundation of the world. To determine means to choose. Calvin's words denying the free will of man (by substituting the free will the Bible describes in regards to life and death with "predestination" to life or death) substitutes the free will indicated in scripture with Augustine's determinist Gnosticism.

I was once an pelagian or semi-pelagian like you. When I finally read Calvinists themselves, I realized the massive amount of straw man arguments used.

This has "pelagianism" written all over it.

I call your theology here "pelagianism"

Boogie man fallacy (appeal to fear). You resort to this fallacy because you don't have a convincing argument. Pelagius believed that man, not God initiated salvation. However, I have articulated that man first hears the gospel and then responds. This is starkly in contrast to Pelagianism. Further, Pelagius believed man was born good, and uncorrupted, without a sin nature. I have not only articulated that man has a sin nature, but described the cause of that sin nature. Pelagius also believed that man's will was sufficient to save him. I have articulated that ,in spite of man's choice for life and repentence, these had no power to actually regenerate him, and that can ONLY be done by God.

Your suggestion that you quoted John Calvin's words about the issue of "will" is not true. I added your quote of John Calvin above in red. He says nothing about "will" in your quote. Again, you misrepresent Calvinism and refuse to admit it. The makes for any possible conversation on the subject impossible. You continue arguing against a straw man.

I was once an pelagian or semi-pelagian like you. When I finally read Calvinists themselves, I realized the massive amount of straw man arguments used.



WOW, that is shockingly bad and unbiblical theology. This has "pelagianism" written all over it. Nowhere in scripture is sin nature caused by a fear of death. Please cite even one verse (or as I expect-- you will ignore this request). I call your theology here "pelagianism" because it completely fails to understand biblical spiritual death, or to use a historic Augustinian phrase... Original sin.

Death in the scripture is both spiritual and physical. Spiritual death is spoken of in passages like Ephesians 2:1, we are "dead in our sins and trespasses." Romans 5:12-21 is a passage speaking about the cause of this death. In Adam we all died (spiritually). In Adam the whole human race began its rebellion and that rebellious nature is called sin nature.

And by the way, you continually and completely fail to understand or grasp Calvinism. Your knowledge of Calvinism is painfully shallow.

The sin nature is CAUSED by our fear of death. Far from preventing us from choosing life, our fear of death can actually motivate us to choose life. I went on to give an actual example from scripture of someone's fear of death motivating them to choose life.

WOW, that is shockingly bad and unbiblical theology. This has "pelagianism" written all over it. Nowhere in scripture is sin nature caused by a fear of death. Please cite even one verse (or as I expect-- you will ignore this request)

Jhn 8:34 NASB95 - 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.​

​

Heb 2:14-16 NASB95 - 14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.​

​

Rom 8:15-17 NASB95 - 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with [Him] so that we may also be glorified with [Him.]​

​

1Jo 4:18 NASB95 - 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.​

The cause of our enslavement to sin is our fear of death. Death is the punishment for sin. For example, a hungry man may fear he'll starve and may steal food. Or a man may fear pain, and so follow what feels good to his flesh instead. If Satan was the master of death, and man feared death, then he obeyed the master of death out of his fear, thereby being enslaved to Satan - known or unbeknownst. Therefore, the cause of man's enslavement to sin is our fear of death.

No wonder you fail to read Calvinism correctly, and why you cannot read the scriptures in context, you failed to read the illustration in context. The point being made in my quote was an illustration of your view that all men begin do not return to the innocence of Adam without sin nature, or original sin, but rather the issue is why some men choose faith and others choose rejection. It is based upon the nature of the man. At this point, I doubt you will begin to address that issue.

Your word salad would give Kamala Harris a run for her money.

I believe in Original Sin. However, the scripture does not say the "guilt" of Adam is distributed or inherited or spread or passed.... it says the result, punishment, judgement for Adam's sin (death) is passed, distributed, inherited. No one until Augustine believed that "guilt" was the part of Original Sin which was passed from Adam.

However, the point is completely moot anyway, and entirely irrelevant. Adam's judgement (original sin) will be repealed/vacated/abolished PRIOR to the Great White Throne judgement where everyone's eternal destiny will be decided. So regardless of whether you believe sin was passed or death was passed, it gets vacated before the end anyway.

Lets go through this verse by verse:

Rom 5:12-18 NASB95 - 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like [that which came] through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment [arose] from one [transgression] resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift [arose] from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.​

Over and over again, we see that DEATH is the thing that is passed, not guilt. Death is passed. Death reigned. Many died. Condemnation. Death reigned. Condemnation to all men. Every time, it says Death was the result or thing that was transmitted from Adam to his offspring, not guilt. Condemnation is a SENTENCE, not a verdict. So why is this question moot anyway?

Numbers 14:18
The LORD is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.​

​

Ezekiel 18:20
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.​

This seems at first to be contradiction, but then you realize that Ezekiel is future prophecy. Numbers describes the law, and what now is. Under the Law and what now exists, man may be punished for their father's sin. Yet, the future prophecy is that none will be punished for their ancestor's sin, but each will be judged by his own sin alone. How does this square with either concept of Original Sin?

Consider the words of Romans 5:16 above (in red). For a SINGLE TRANSGRESSION, the death judgement came into the world. God didn't even Judge Eve for her sin, but for Adam's single sin, Adam Eve, their children, the animals, the plants, the ground of the entire plant... all of creation was subjected to the judgment of death. This was a UNIVERSAL, CORPORATE judgment for a single transgression.

So to reverse Original Sin... how many sins have to be "forgiven" or "atoned for" to reverse death? One! Justifying the single transgression would result in a UNIVERSAL reversal of Adam's death judgment. That means everyone (and probably every animal) who died under Adam's judgement would be resurrected. But what does Romans 5:16b tell us? Christ's free gift of righteousness doesn't get applied to the "single transgression" but rather it gets applied to MANY TRANSGRESSIONS. This means Christ's atonement does not cover Adam's Original corporate sin, but covers each person's individual sins. So only Christians are resurrected then? No. There will be a UNIVERSAL resurrection prior to the Great White Throne judgment.

Acts 24:15
having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.​

​

John 5:28
“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.​

​

Revelation 21:8
“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”​

​

Daniel 12:1
Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.​

So there will be a universal resurrection PRIOR to the Great White Throne judgement, but HOW does everyone, not just Christians, get resurrected?

Consider the JUSTICE of a universal, corporate judgement. So long as ALL have individual sin, and none are individually righteous, a corporate judgement remains just and justified. This only works so long as none are righteous, not even one. What happens if there IS one who is righteous? That would render a universal, corporate judgment UNJUST, and necessitate its repeal or vacatur. So is Adam's death judgment repealed or vacated?

2Ti 1:10 NASB95 - 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,​

​

1Co 15:26 NASB95 - 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.​

​

Rev 20:11-15 NASB95 - 11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one [of them] according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.​

Here we see that Adam's death judgment is ABOLISHED, not atoned for or forgiven. When you abolish a universal, corporate death judgment, it results in a universal, corporate resurrection WITHOUT RESPECT TO THEIR GUILT OR INNOCENCE. This is so that each can be judged INDIVIDUALLY by the Great White Throne judgement. Then Ezekiel 18:20 can be fulfilled where each one is judged according to his own sin without respect to their ancestor.

Therefore I say that one's view of Original Sin is really quite moot. I believe there is more than sufficient evidence that death, not guilt is passed from Adam. But regardless of one's position on whether death is passed or guilt is passed, Adam's Original Sin death judgment is vacated, so all come alive an unencumbered by Original Sin to the Great White Throne judgment.

It should be obvious, but I will state the obvious. This is not universalism because universalism (universal salvation) would require the universal resurrection to occur AFTER the Great White Throne judgment. There is no resurrection from the GWTJ's second death. The individual judgement determines your eternal destiny. It is in the individual judgment of the GWTJ where Christ's gift of righteousness may be applied to atone for the sin of the believers. Those without Christ's righteousness will be condemned by their individual sin and face eternal damnation and torment in the lake of fire.

 

[Gup20]

Your accusation that I malign the character of God reminds me of Romans 9. It is identical with the objector to what Paul says. In 9:24 this objector accuses Paul of "There is no injustice with God, is there?" You are making the identical complaint that is opposite Paul in Romans 9.

Look at Rom 9:32 - "Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone... " The ones rejected are not rejected because God predetermined it ... but because they did not pursue it by faith. Faith is the condition for acceptance or rejection. Paul was quoting from Jeremiah 18 in Romans 9:

​

Jer 18:4 ESV - 4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. 5 Then the word of the Lord came to me. 6 He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.​

The clay "spoils" in the the potters hand. This happens when there is an impurity or imperfection in the clay. Far from telling us God decreed from the foundation of the world what would happen, God "reconsiders" in the moment if He should change directions and remold the vessel into a vessel of dishonor based on the clay, not on his predetermination.

So let me get this... You think God wanted sin to never happen? Did God try to stop it? Maybe he tried and just could not keep sin from happening because of Adam's all powerful free will over a weak failure of a God who cannot stop the all powerful free will of man from sinning.

I think God made man in His image with the capacity to make moral judgements and choices. We were not pre-programed lines of code running through a simulated scenario, but individuals with free moral agency. Of course God knew we would eventually fail, but He also knew from the beginning He would rescue us from our inevitable failure. He set the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden... but He also told them the penalty if they violated the one rule. By specifying a penalty for sin, yes, God did act to prevent sin, and therefore sin was not the invention of God, but of man.

We do this today by setting stiff penalties for the crimes we find particularly egregious to dissuade violators.

If corruption was not a part of his design, then God designed very little. This is the typical Open Theistic statements that result from your theology.

God didn't design corruption, He designed the RESPONSE to corruption. That death would come, that plants would grow thorns, that man and animals would become predators, etc. He designed the flexibility into the creation in the eventuality of corruption, but he did not decree that Adam and Eve would sin. If God decided when, where, and how Adam and Eve would sin, then God, not Adam is the author of sin.

Rather God created a being capable of determining for himself if he would obey or sin. What a small, weak God calvin envisioned who's sovereignty was unable to account for a single human choice!

I never said it was. In the illustration, the pile of dung is mans sinful desire, not Gods hatred of that sinful desire.

In Deuteronomy 30:19, it says God set before man "life and death." I said this was like me setting oatmeal and pancakes before my child and instructing them to choose. You disagreed and said it was more like setting fruit and dung before the child. Since the original is "life and death" and "sinful desires" is not one of the choices God set before man, how should I interpret "fruit and dung" but in the light of "life and death?" This is why I responded to you that God did not set before man life and sin... but life and death.

Gup20, this is the end of our conversation. Your waisting my time by constant misrepresentations and by not even responded honestly to what I have said.

Which part have I misrepresented or failed to respond to? There is a difference between misrepresented and disagreed with. For example, I said I know that you believe that man has a "choice" but then I went on to refute your notion of choice saying that if God decided beforehand what choice each man would choose, and prevented him by means of manipulating his will from making any other choice (by causing him to only want a specific choice), then God is the one who has decided and man didn't actually have a choice. I both acknowledged your belief and then described the error in it. I disagreed with your characterization of an irresistible choice as being a choice at all.