"I Don't Want Free Will" by Martin Luther

[erowe1]

No I'm not. For you to think that is simply illogical. Again if a D.A. asks a defense attorney to ask his client to accept a deal, that doesn't mean the D.A. is "acknowledging" that the client can be forced by the defense attorney to accept the deal. In fact when a client signs a deal he actually has to state in open court that he was not coerced to accept the deal. So no. I'm not acknowledging your fallacy that man lacks freewill by praying for the Holy Spirit to work on someone's heart. I fully believe, based on clear scripture, that God has left man with the power to accept or reject the Holy Spirit. God in His sovereignty grants man freewill. You disagree, fine. But to pretend that I'm agreeing with you when I am not is just plain silly.

When did I ever say anything about man lacking free will?

 

[erowe1]

*Arrrrgggg* The way you said it is you making God not in control of everything.

No it's not. And if anyone infers that from what I said, that's poor reading on their part, not poor writing on mine. My statement prescinds from any claim about whether anything exists that God does not control. It leaves that possibility open solely for the sake of argument in making the point I was making. Whether it is the case that such things exist or not, the things we pray for are things that we acknowledge to be under God's control.

If this wasn't clear to anyone before I answered muwahid's question, it should have been after I did.

 

[jmdrake]

Of course God doesn't need me to pray. My praying doesn't involve any pretense that I think God needs me to pray. I am the one who needs to pray. When I make my requests known to God, the peace that passes all understanding guards my heart and mind in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:6-7). When I pray, what I am doing is acknowledging God's control over that about which I pray.

And when I pray I am acknowledging that God has in His infinite wisdom given man a part to play in salvation. Whether that be preaching the word, praying for others, showing His love to others ect. I don't say prayers like "God, please let gravity continue to work tomorrow" because that's going to happen whether I pray or not. I suppose I could to make sure I'm acknowledging God's sovereignty over gravity. Hmmm...what else? How about "God, let the tides come in tomorrow and go out at their appointed time." To me such a prayer would not make sense. Perhaps it would to you. I might pray "Dear Lord, thank you for gravity and thank you for the tides." If I believed as you do I would pray "Dear God, thank you for whatever destination you have for sinner X be it heaven or hell" versus "Dear God, please work on the heart of sinner X to choose You."

 

[jmdrake]

When did I ever say anything about man lacking free will?

Oh yeah. I forgot. You're the on again/off again Calvinist. You were defending TULIP the other day. The "I" in "irresistible grace" means that man lacks free will.

In this context, when I pray for a sinner I do not believe I'm subjecting him to "irresistible grace" nor do I believe that God will subject him to "irresistible grace".

 

[erowe1]

And when I pray I am acknowledging that God has in His infinite wisdom given man a part to play in salvation. Whether that be preaching the word, praying for others, showing His love to others ect. I don't say prayers like "God, please let gravity continue to work tomorrow" because that's going to happen whether I pray or not. I suppose I could to make sure I'm acknowledging God's sovereignty over gravity. Hmmm...what else? How about "God, let the tides come in tomorrow and go out at their appointed time." To me such a prayer would not make sense. Perhaps it would to you. I might pray "Dear Lord, thank you for gravity and thank you for the tides." If I believed as you do I would pray "Dear God, thank you for whatever destination you have for sinner X be it heaven or hell" versus "Dear God, please work on the heart of sinner X to choose You."

But it's still the case that everything God does is going to happen whether you pray or not. Right?

You believe that as much as I do. Don't you? Or do you actually think that your prayers change God's mind?

 

[erowe1]

Oh yeah. I forgot. You're the on again/off again Calvinist. You were defending TULIP the other day. The "I" in "irresistible grace" means that man lacks free will.

Which does the "I" mean? Irresistible grace? Or that man lacks free will?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Calvinism teaches that God already knows who is going to choose Him. I'm not saying Arminianism doesn't teach that, but Calvinism most certainly does. So the argument that you are attempting to use against Arminiasm most squarely fits against Calvinism.


.
If God has already chosen to save some and not save others as Calvinism teaches, than why pray for people? Are you hoping that God will change His mind and decide to save someone that He has already damned? Really, this is the the most bizarre argument I've seen from you yet. Are you claiming that Armininism isn't true because God doesn't know who will choose Him? Do you think that Arminianism is false because Calvinism is false? Unless you believe that we shouldn't pray for lost souls. In that case you are again contradicting Jesus who in Matthew 9:38 said to "Pray that the Lord of the harvest send forth reapers". You are also contradicting Paul who said:



1 Timothy 2:1 ESV / 97 helpful votes
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people

I asked you two questions:

If Arminianism is true, then God already knows who is going to choose Him. So why pray for them?

Also, if Arminianism is true, God is doing everything He can to try to save everyone equally. So why pray for people? What more can God do?

And instead of trying to understand what I was attempting to show you, you did a "well, Calvinism is bad too" argument.

I asked you those questions to show you that even if you deny the truth of God's Word in predestination and only accept Arminianism, you STILL have to answer the same kind of questions that Calvinists do.

 

[jmdrake]

Which does the "I" mean? Irresistible grace? Or that man lacks free will?

Considering that this whole thread is about "I don't want free will", if you're saying that man still has free will under your interpretation of the Bible, then you aren't agreeing with the OP/Martin Luther/John Calvin. I'll leave it at that.

 

[erowe1]

Considering that this whole thread is about "I don't want free will", if you're saying that man still has free will under your interpretation of the Bible, then you aren't agreeing with the OP/Martin Luther/John Calvin. I'll leave it at that.

I asked the question:

When did I ever say anything about man lacking free will?

As far as I am aware, the answer to that question is that I never said anything about man lacking free will. I never said man lacks it. I never said man does not lack it. Everything I have said has been apart from the question of whether or not man has free will.

And yet, here you are, still talking about my saying something about man having free will.

 

[jmdrake]

I asked you two questions:

And instead of trying to understand what I was attempting to show you, you did a "well, Calvinism is bad too" argument.

I asked you those questions to show you that even if you deny the truth of God's Word in predestination and only accept Arminianism, you STILL have to answer the same kind of questions that Calvinists do.

I wasn't making a "Calvinism is bad too" argument. I was making a "If you are attempting to refute Arminianism based on a belief that "you think Calvinism shares with Armianism and claim that Armianism can't be true because Arminianism teaches to pray for sinners than that argument makes no sense." argument. It would be like a Catholic saying "If the Protestant belief in the trinity is true, then why does the Bible say that there is only one God?" Okay, Protestants and Catholics have to wrestle with some of the same questions. Arminians and Calvinists have to wrestle with some of the same question. And? Your point is?

Also your understanding of predestination, that God chooses some for heaven and others for hell, is not Biblical. We've had that discussion to many times already. In fact the Greek word for predestination is literally "set boundaries". Yes I believe that God has "set boundaries" for all. That's not the same as believing that God has not given man freewill. In fact (apparently) some Calvinists disagree with you on man lacking freewill. (erowe1 if he is a Calvinist or whatever he believes.) I've seen other Calvinists here so "No no no...double predestination is wrong. God doesn't force anyone to go to hell. Just some to go to heaven." Ummm....okay. Considering this range of beliefs among Calvinists it's silly for you to pretend that non-Calvinists are "unbiblical".

 

[jmdrake]

I asked the question:


As far as I am aware, the answer to that question is that I never said anything about man lacking free will. I never said man lacks it. I never said man does not lack it. Everything I have said has been apart from the question of whether or not man has free will.

And yet, here you are, still talking about my saying something about man having free will.

Fine. So you're not talking about the subject of the thread. /discusssion

 

[erowe1]

Fine. So you're not talking about the subject of the thread. /discusssion

I'm not talking about the title of the thread. But all of my contributions to the thread have been valid responses to things people said in it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I wasn't making a "Calvinism is bad too" argument. I was making a "If you are attempting to refute Arminianism based on a belief that "you think Calvinism shares with Armianism and claim that Armianism can't be true because Arminianism teaches to pray for sinners than that argument makes no sense." argument. It would be like a Catholic saying "If the Protestant belief in the trinity is true, then why does the Bible say that there is only one God?" Okay, Protestants and Catholics have to wrestle with some of the same questions. Arminians and Calvinists have to wrestle with some of the same question. And? Your point is?

Also your understanding of predestination, that God chooses some for heaven and others for hell, is not Biblical. We've had that discussion to many times already. In fact the Greek word for predestination is literally "set boundaries". Yes I believe that God has "set boundaries" for all. That's not the same as believing that God has not given man freewill. In fact (apparently) some Calvinists disagree with you on man lacking freewill. (erowe1 if he is a Calvinist or whatever he believes.) I've seen other Calvinists here so "No no no...double predestination is wrong. God doesn't force anyone to go to hell. Just some to go to heaven." Ummm....okay. Considering this range of beliefs among Calvinists it's silly for you to pretend that non-Calvinists are "unbiblical".

So...the answers to my two questions are what? Here are my two questions:

If Arminianism is true, then God already knows who is going to choose Him. So why pray for them?

Also, if Arminianism is true, God is doing everything He can to try to save everyone equally. So why pray for people? What more can God do?

 

[erowe1]

So...the answers to my two questions are what? Here are my two questions:

I would like to know the answers too. I think you're getting at the same thing I was in post 145.

 

[jmdrake]

So...the answers to my two questions are what? Here are my two questions:

1) Does Arminianism require God to know who is going to choose Him? Because the literal Greek definition of predestination, which is predetermined boundary, doesn't require that. I'm not saying that it does require it or it doesn't. But Calvinism does required that God know who is going to choose him. So if it makes sense under Calvinism to pray for the lost, it makes sense under Arminianism whether or not Arminianism requires what you say it requires. And as I told erowe, I don't pray about things that I know are going to happen anyway like gravity or the tides. I thank God for that. Do all Calvinist's prayers for sinners say "I thank you Lord for whatever choice you have already predetermined for person X?" Because if not, then Calvinist prayers for the lost do not make sense IMO.

2) The key belief of Arminianism is that everyone has the opportunity to be saved. I don't know if "equality" is a requirement of Arminianism. But again, from the Calvinist point of view, if whatever God is going to do for the sinner is predetermined solely by Him, then the only Calvinist prayer for the sinner that makes sense is "Dear Lord, I thank you for whatever You are already planning to do for sinner X." Jesus' admonition that we pray for the Lord of the harvest to send forth reapers makes no sense. Jesus should have said "Pray to thank the Lord of the harvest to send forth reapers when He gets good and ready."

So, in short, neither of your questions were competent questions. And if you ask again, I will cut and paste the same answer.

 

[jmdrake]

But it's still the case that everything God does is going to happen whether you pray or not. Right?

You believe that as much as I do. Don't you? Or do you actually think that your prayers change God's mind?

You are anthropomorphizing God and trying to frame Him in a box that you understand. On multiple occasions the Bible talks about God "repenting" from the evil He was going to do. What does that mean for an entity that exists in all times simultaneously? It's humanly impossible to say. But I believe an understanding of Schrodinger's cat moves one in the right direction for a 3 dimensional being like us to understanding what an infinite dimension being like God might mean by repenting.

 

[Sola_Fide]

1) Does Arminianism require God to know who is going to choose Him? Because the literal Greek definition of predestination, which is predetermined boundary, doesn't require that. I'm not saying that it does require it or it doesn't. But Calvinism does required that God know who is going to choose him. So if it makes sense under Calvinism to pray for the lost, it makes sense under Arminianism whether or not Arminianism requires what you say it requires. And as I told erowe, I don't pray about things that I know are going to happen anyway like gravity or the tides. I thank God for that. Do all Calvinist's prayers for sinners say "I thank you Lord for whatever choice you have already predetermined for person X?" Because if not, then Calvinist prayers for the lost do not make sense IMO.

2) The key belief of Arminianism is that everyone has the opportunity to be saved. I don't know if "equality" is a requirement of Arminianism. But again, from the Calvinist point of view, if whatever God is going to do for the sinner is predetermined solely by Him, then the only Calvinist prayer for the sinner that makes sense is "Dear Lord, I thank you for whatever You are already planning to do for sinner X." Jesus' admonition that we pray for the Lord of the harvest to send forth reapers makes no sense. Jesus should have said "Pray to thank the Lord of the harvest to send forth reapers when He gets good and ready."

So, in short, neither of your questions were competent questions. And if you ask again, I will cut and paste the same answer.

So, hmmmm...let's see if I can try to squeeze anything resembling an answer out of what you just typed.

Jmdrake,

In your view, does God know who will choose Him? Yes or no.

 

[acptulsa]

In your view, does God know who will choose Him? Yes or no.

What does that mean for an entity that exists in all times simultaneously? It's humanly impossible to say.

I'm not Mr. Drake, but you gave my answer. Seems to me there's entirely too much presumptuousness in this thread. You don't have to know the unknowable to achieve salvation. Obviously.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not Mr. Drake, but you gave my answer. Seems to me there's entirely too much presumptuousness in this thread. You don't have to know the unknowable to achieve salvation. Obviously.

The Bible already says unequivocally that not only does God know who will be saved, but God sovereignly chooses who will be saved based on His own purpose in election.:

Romans 9:11-16

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:

not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

We already know that God chooses His elect based on His own sovereign purpose. I'm merely asking for JMdrake's unbiblical view of things so I can show him how illogical it really is.

I don't have a whole lot of optimism that he will answer me in a consistent line of questioning though...

 

[erowe1]

You are anthropomorphizing God and trying to frame Him in a box that you understand. On multiple occasions the Bible talks about God "repenting" from the evil He was going to do. What does that mean for an entity that exists in all times simultaneously? It's humanly impossible to say. But I believe an understanding of Schrodinger's cat moves one in the right direction for a 3 dimensional being like us to understanding what an infinite dimension being like God might mean by repenting.

Anthropomorphizing is what the Bible does when it refers to God repenting. There's nothing wrong with using anthropomorphic language to talk about God. I don't think we can avoid it. We just have to be aware of its limitations when we do it.

But, given that that language is anthropomorphic, I still don't know how you answer my questions. Do you think that your prayers make it that God will do something differently than what he was going to do already? If not, then that's as much of a problem for your view as it is for Calvinism. And if this isn't a problem for you, then I don't see why you should insist that it has to be a problem for me.