>
> Unfortunately, such disastrously wrong doctrine is all too common.

Back to the basics.  Those who state their position as above are those
who hold to the position that man is truly free in his will (Position
#1).  Those who hold to the OSAS position believe that men are not free
(Position #2).

Next, "free" must be given a definition in the context of the argument.
In the context, "Free" pertains only to whether or not a man can, on
his own, turn to God without any further movement or empowerment by
God.  Those who hold to #1 maintain that man is not irredeemably bad
but is capable of self improvement  When sin begins in a child it is
entirely the result of temptation toward selfishness arising out of a
particular circumstance.  Basically, this view is in a quasi alignment
with BF Skinner, who was an advocate of environmental determinism, in
that they would declare that if you could constantly modify the
circumstances, the child would never sin.  Pragmatically, #1 views
Satan on the one side casting a vote against salvation, God on the
other side casting his vote in favor of salvation but man must break
the tie.  God simply does not interfere with man's "free-will."  Man
must make up his own mind and make his own decision for even God can
not make it for him.

So why is #1 so appealing?  Well it seems to give a more acceptable
answer to the problem of evil at first glance.  #2 maintains that God's
decree ordained evil whereas #1 holds that God merely permitted it.  #1
seems to protect any impugning of God's reputation.  Also #1 seem more
to align itself with God's attribute of love, portraying a God who is
in the process of saving as many people as He can without violating the
human will.  #1 teaches further that God works in the heart, pleading
with man to come to acceptance of the offer of salvation, but never
determines the end.

But lets see if we can illustrate #1 in everyday terms.

Let's begin by imaging that I am a master auto mechanic in my tow truck
and I am driving along the highway and per chance come upon a man (Mr.
Z)  who has just pulled over on the side of the road due to a flat
tire.  I pull over and watch the man pull out his jack, loosen his
tire, jacks up the car and pull the flat tire off.  But just at that
moment he sees that there is a fluid leak under his car so he lays down
and scoots under to inspect it.  At that very moment the jack fails and
the car falls on the man.

Now there I am with my tow truck.  I could hook up my wench and lift
the car up off of the man.  But that this would interfere with the
freewill choice of the man to crawl under his car, I just stand there
and hope that he can lift the car up off the ground and at the same
time, push him out from beneath the weight.  I can justify my
inactivity by saying that I didn't ordain the failure of the jack.  In
fact, of his own free-will, the man chose to crawl under the car.  I
didn't ordain it, I just permitted it even after warning the man of his
impending doom.

Now the question is, does this absolve me of responsibility?  I think
most would say, No.

So lets bring this to bear on how God operates with men.  God created
man.  He knows precisely the weight of the car, the position of the
jack, the movement of air with each passing car or truck.  He also knew
of the placement of piece of metal that dropped off of Mr. X's car as
it fell on the highway.  He knew that Mr. X would be driving that day
on that highway and that that piece of metal would fall off and come to
rest precisely where Mr. Z's front left tire would run over it causing
a blow out.  He also knew that Mr. A, driving his 18 wheel truck would
drop his cigarette lighter just as he was coming up on Mr. Z's road
side blow out and that in bending over to retrieve it would swerve
dangerously close to that side of the road and in doing so, would cause
such a rush of wind that the car would slip off its jack.  Now God
could have easily arranged a sudden gust of wind in the opposite
direction which would counter act the movement of air which would rock
Mr. Z's car off the jack.  He could have done all these things without
interfering with the free-will of Mr. Z and yet saved him from his doom
-but He didn't.

The question now is, "Does it really help to say that God didn't ordain
the failure of the jack but merely permitted it?  If a human cannot
avoid responsibility by saying he only permitted the man to die, how
much less can a sovereign God avoid responsibility by saying he only
permitted the accident to happen?

So those of position #2 do not seen that position #1 resolves anything
after all.  In point of fact, it only calls God's power into question.
Was he really helpless in adverting the man's doom?  Did He misjudge
the velocity of the truck and the effect it would cause on the
teetering jack?  How many things in a sinful world actually occur
without His sovereign ordination and providential control?

Position #2 (Calvinist) maintain that God's sovereignty and
providential control are achieved and maintained through the
manipulation of secondary causes.

Position #1 (Arminians), hold that God only permits such things to
occur.

Nevertheless, His permission necessarily means that He bore ultimate
responsibility for it.  After all, He could have chosen "not to permit"
the truck driver from leaving the last stop light for 30 seconds
longer.

Calvinist (#2) believe that God ordains all the comes to pass and
brings that ordination to fruition either by active or passive means.
"All things work together for the good" requires preordination.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/22/05 6:32:24 PM ---