Originally Posted by MikeL
"A person will always make choices according to their nature." This falls into the category of nonsense about not having free will, it's just stated a different way.

You haven't demonstrated why it is "nonsense" to deny that men have a free will. Nor have you demonstrated why the lack of a free will would lead to a complete lack of volition. Again, we do not deny that men make choices. What we deny is that they will make choices which are contrary to their nature. "For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:5-8).

It's a great way to justify using force rather than persuasion, because if reason - the ability to think and make decisions - is subservient to this unconscious nature - then trying to persuade a group of people against their will (read: nature) is hopeless and illogical.

Ultimately, God must change the heart of the sinner. But as I previously stated, God uses means. One of those means is by believers reasoning with unbelievers in the hopes that the Spirit applies the truth of the gospel to them.

Perhaps that's why instead of inviting people to church, Calvin made it a law in Geneva to attend church.

Calvin was not a dictator. Why don't you find yourself a legitimate biography of the man instead of relying on his destractors? If it was a law in Geneva to attend church, it can hardly be supposed unique to that city in that time. There were similar laws all over Europe with respect to religious duties and beliefs. This is not to argue that such laws are good. But to attribute to Calvinism some inherent favorability toward force is absurd.

But how was this driving force that makes all our decisions found in the first place? Did someone choose to read it in the Bible? Weren't they driven there by their "nature"? Wasn't their interpretation simply an unfolding of their "nature"? And if so, what makes their interpretation - their nature - any better than mine?

Because I don't see any evidence for this in Scripture. But you would say that's my nature - it's blinding me to the truths - of your nature.

Yes. Your mind is set on the things of man rather than the things of God - at least in this particular matter.

So what makes your nature any better than mine, seriously? If you try to explain it to me, aren't you just saying what your nature chose you to say? And I'll say what my nature says I'm supposed to say. Nothing will get done!

What indeed makes your nature different than anyone else's, Mike? Were you more holy or more intelligent or more humble than the rest of the sinners around you that you decided, of your own free will, to choose Christ?


I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.