There's a nasty rumour going around that both ardent Calvinists and Armininians are missing the point in trying to justify their beliefs against the other side of the debate - because (as the thinking goes), "the Bible affirms both that God is sovereign and that man has free will."Read more: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/calvinism-arminianism/87435-to-all-you-folks-who-think-theres-middle-ground.html
For the last time, no it doesn't. Not even close. First of all, the sovereignty of God and free-will are logically incompatible; they are mutually exclusive. "Free-will" was a concept developed expressly to counter the philosophy of determinism (that there is a higher being controlling every detail of life). The two concepts have always existed in opposition to each other. Trying to reconcile them is just ignorant.
Second, while God's sovereignty is explicitly taught in Scripture (Isaiah 46:9ff; Ephesians 1:3ff; Romans 9:6ff, etc.) the concept of "free-will" can only be found in Scripture if the person reading the Bible has already assumed it is there. It is never explicitly stated. In every debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, I have yet to be given one single verse which says explicitly that man has free-will. It is simply not there.
So, please, to all you folks who want to believe there is middle ground between the two positions. No there isn't. There never has been; there never will be. Stop wasting everyone's time by pretending differently.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Free-will and God's Sovereignty: No Middle Ground
I just posted on Fundamental Forums how the idea that "free-will" is somehow compatible with the sovereignty of God, or that there is some middle ground between the two concepts, is blatantly false. Here's what I wrote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Not saying I disagree, however I would like to point out that, besides the argument that these two concepts are mutually exclusive, I do not think this post adequately resolves the issue (as if a post could EVER do that :). Its basically like saying "It is wrong because its wrong."
I think it would be good to systematically work through some of the arguments on both sides. What are the scriptures the middle grounders cite? How are these inadequate? What are some of their propositions? What are the logical flaws/ungrounded assumptions in those propositions?
"Besides the argument that these two concepts are mutually exclusive" - That formed half of my argument. You've accused me of saying "it is wrong because its wrong" while at the same time you have casually swept aside half of my argument without any attempt to engage it. Perhaps that's a just A BIT hypocritical?
Post a Comment