
Originally Posted by
mattfivefour
This is a case where verses aren't needed. Simple logic is. Let me give you a little example. If I know that my cat gets up off the bed, goes eats its food, and then uses its cat box at 7 every morning of the week, how does my having that knowledge result in my controlling the cat? It doesn't. My knowledge is separate from the cat's routine, and in no way affects or effects his will to do something.
The argument the atheist is using is an error in logic known as post hoc propter hoc or the "cause and effect fallacy". (Post hoc propter hoc is Latin for "after this, because of this".) My knowing something in advance does not mean that I caused it. Now, with God it is exactly the same thing in nature, just not in scale. I know quite a lot of things after they happen and a few limited things before they happen. God knows everything past, present, and future, right down to the sub-atomic level. But in no way does His knowing it mean He causes it, anymore than my knowing what my cat is going to do causes that to happen. So nothing in God's omniscience preempts man's free will.
Now, the Calvinist's unscriptural concept of God's irresistible will causes them a problem in this regard; in that if God's will is irresistible then we are essentially puppets who can only do what God has ultimately willed, some of us being willed by Him to salvation and some to destruction; but all, by some mysterious action of God that we cannot understand, done in perfect justice. That this apparent injustice of creating some people to be destined for hell is actually perfectly just is simply something, they say, you just have to take on faith since we must believe that God is good and just and righteous and it will all be clear to us in the end. Of course, this all flies in the face of "whosoever will may come" and countless other scriptures.
The answer, of course, is to understand that while God's will IS irresistible once He wills something, He has, in the case of man, willed man to use his own free will in so far as it comes to choosing God or rejecting Him. This is not a limiting of God's sovereignty; rather it is an exercise of God's sovereignty. The fallacy exercised by Calvinists is known as "disjunctive syllogism" ... assuming that two propositions are mutually exclusive. In this case the propositions are: "God is sovereign" and "Man has free will". Because they deny the conjunct, they (following John Calvin) reason that either God is sovereign or man has free will: both cannot be true. Therefore since God by definition MUST be sovereign they deduce that free will does not exist. Do you see their mistake? (Too bad they can't.)
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Bookmarks