Only Feasible Position to Take - OSAS Arminian

[Churchwork]

Have you figured out how free will can be free if determinism is true? (Determinism is causing everything because each thing produces another thing which then could be infinitely foreseen, including God's own planned interventions.) Determinism is needed because God would have to be able to account for all things.

Obviously free will can't exist without God because how could an unconscious universe without a will and without a conscience, produce a consciousness and conscience with a free will in a man! Can a bird house produce a bird? Of course not.

So the question is, is free will real or illusory? If it is illusory, it is explained by determinism and therefore, Calvinism would be true. And furthermore, it really wouldn't matter what you or I do (whether Atheism Naturalism or Calvinism Charades), because it is all precaused anyway. Whether you jump out of a plane tomorrow or feed millions of starving children in the next year, it wouldn't matter. It's all forced to happen anyway. There was nothing you could do about it anyway. You would not be any more guilty for being a mass murderer than you would be if you were the most spiritual Christian that ever lived.

All the pleadings in the Bible would be a charade, because you couldn't respond to them any more than you could choose to do something other than what you were going to do anyway.

God would be evil to have created us since He lied about our free will and pleads to it, for it would just be illusory. But God can't be a liar, for if He exists, He would be holy, righteous and true (truthful).

A Calvinist will respond by saying free will is not real and even say that God does not plead with sinners (to avoid the contradictory two wills of having a secret will and a revealed will since God can't contradict Himself). A contradictory will to reveal (say, in the Bible, by misreading it) that God wants to save all, but has a secret will not wanting to save all, He would be contradicting Himself and lying. So if you believe such a God, you are just making God in your own image, the image of a liar. You are a liar if that is what you worship. The Bible says, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). If such behavior is immoral for man, then it would be immoral for God, for why would His morality be less than ours?

That's why some cults and religions like Gnostics have two creators. One Good Creator who created the creator of us. This creator who became evil by his own volition, created us. But would a Good God allow an evil creator? That would make God Himself evil. But God can't be evil.

Is it reasonable for an evil creator to get his way to not provide sufficient grace to save (by passing over), irresistibly saving others, and damning billions to Hell without recourse or opportunity for salvation, all while God the ultimate Creator does want to save all? No! A loving God would never allow that. But that is what Calvinism is. Praise be to God, only God can create life! Neither the Devil, fallen angels, or demons can create sentient life (power of perception and consciousness) out of the material of the universe.

Others try to make Jesus to have two wills like the Coptics or versions of. His godly will is to want to save all, but his human will does not. The Coptics give Jesus two wills. But not wanting to save all by providing sufficient grace to all to give us the choice under any circumstance is evil. Besides Jesus is not schizo. He has one will and one will only. He always does the will of the Father. His human nature and divine nature are always willing the same thing in perfect accord and obedience to the Father.

Finally, there is the problem with, how can there be a secret other will if you believe it is revealed God doesn't want to save all? It's not a secret then. So such attempts of Calvinists are completely absurd and evil to say the least. Who know how corrupted man's heart really is! But we do know it is not Totally depraved. Otherwise, nobody sufficiently could receive what Jesus did for us by the grace of God.

The Calvinist shuts his mind down to the verses of Scripture that show God is pleading with man. So that is how a Calvinist deals with the contradiction between pleading with men and no alleged free will, by denying Scripture; that is, by denying free will to exist or is real, and by denying God is pleading with men. Of course, their very choice to assume this is itself a fact of their free will which some choose and others choose not to believe. Test this out. You can change your mind if you like. The truly sad part in such a view is that to assume you cant repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated, then you will never repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. You have put up a wall between yourself and God.

One caveat. Once you are truly regenerated, you can never choose to assume you couldn't repent, because obviously, you really had repented and believed in Christ to be regenerated and would not deny what you know was true for you. It would be more reasonable to conclude you simply were never born-again to begin with if you had made the claim at some future date that you couldn't repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated.

If God pleads with men, free will must be true. If free will is true then God must plead with men. But if God pleads not with men, free will must not be true. If free will is not true, then God is not allowed to plead with men, otherwise it would be a pretentious charade.

If free will is true, which seems more reasonable in light of the above evidenced facts, because God does plead with us, thus giving us the choice, then would determinism have to be false?

But if determinism is false, then how can God foresee all things like all the hairs on our head (and the hairs you choose to pluck out or graft back in at any given moment)? Moreover, how can God truly create a person with free will for doesn't the person's choices have to be created, provisioned for, and caused for any given situation?

Therefore, we must accept, no matter how much it hurts our brain to think about it (and is best not to think about that which you don't have enough information yet to resolve), that both free will (somehow, someway) is true and determinism is true: that is, there is a cause and effect to everything at the same time, free will is true. Nothing, though, is truly random. So accept free will is real and determinism is real even though you don't know how God reconciles them. God is proven by nature and Jesus is proven to be God, so these are not the issues. Moreover, the issue wondering if you are saved by assuming regeneration before repentance and faith, for God will never save you that way. God only saves one way. You would have to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. The issue is trying to understand how God reconciles His infinite foreknowledge with free will and accepting true salvation.

Perhaps God has not given you the capacity to understand since no human being has ever been able to reconcile free will with His infinite foreknowledge, but since we know they both exist, we hold the course. But at least you are being genuine and honest to God in accepting both logically (reasonably) and Scripturally this proper basic knowledge that is not far away from any of our hearts.

The best you can say is this: God works outside of time so He can see all things. He created the world we live in, all its provisions: all its laws, functions, and cause and effects. He knows all our options in any given scenario or situation and environment. Yet free will is true. You can go choose to do something in the next 30 seconds you have never done before in your life. That option is afforded to you. So free will is really true.

The best explanation I have ever seen to attempt to reconcile free will with God's infinite all-knowing foreknowledge is called Molinism. Though its author in the 16th century was a non-OSASer, I believe you can apply it to OSAS Arminians.

The way to apply it is simply to say God has all His programs (like in the movie Matrix), so He knows what any person will do in any given situation based on antecedent causes, and free-will is really free, because God saves to the uttermost; that is, He saves the most and damns the least. This point is what establishes free will: when God saves the most and damns the least. He does everything He can to save a person. He is never unrighteous. He is always righteous and holy in all His dealings. Whereas in Calvinism, God does not save the most and damn the least, but passes over many or even double predestines them to Hell, and irresistibly imposes salvation on others without giving them the free will choice either. Very sad.

Calvinism is the evil that the body of Christ, the Church faces. It is what Satan will get the Antichrist to use against us.

Praise the Lord for this discernment, understanding and spiritual knowledge of protection in the inner spirit.

Troy

[Charles]

Hi Troy, I'm Charles. I thought I'd respond briefly to your post.

So the question is, is free will real or illusory? If it is illusory, it is explained by determinism and therefore, Calvinism would be true.

Calvinists don’t argue that free will is illusory, but that the sinner’s will is not free to begin with; it is enslaved to sin.

And furthermore, it really wouldn't matter what you or I do (whether Atheism Naturalism or Calvinism Charades), because it is all precaused anyway. Whether you jump out of a plane tomorrow or feed millions of starving children in the next year, it wouldn't matter. It's all forced to happen anyway. There was nothing you could do about it anyway. You would not be any more guilty for being a mass murderer than you would be if you were the most spiritual Christian that ever lived.

You’re describing fatalism, which is not the same as theistic determinism. Calvinists deny the former but affirm the latter.

A Calvinist will respond by saying free will is not real

No we wouldn’t. Have you read any Reformed authors on the subject?

and even say that God does not plead with sinners (to avoid the contradictory two wills of having a secret will and a revealed will since God can't contradict Himself).

God does have a secret will – that which he has not revealed to us, but it does not contradict his revealed will which is found in the pages of Scripture. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." (Deut. 29:29)

A contradictory will to reveal (say, in the Bible, by misreading it) that God wants to save all, but has a secret will not wanting to save all, He would be contradicting Himself and lying.

God does not wish to save all men without exception. If he did, all men without exception would be saved. That is universalism, which both Arminians and Calvinists deny.

Is it reasonable for an evil creator to get his way to not provide sufficient grace to save (by passing over), irresistibly saving others, and damning billions to Hell without recourse or opportunity for salvation, all while God the ultimate Creator does want to save all? No!

It may not be reasonable, for there is a way which seems right to a man, but it leads to death. The better question is, is it scriptural? God saves those whom he chooses to save, the elect.

Others try to make Jesus to have two wills like the Coptics or versions of. His godly will is to want to save all, but his human will does not. The Coptics give Jesus two wills. But not wanting to save all by providing sufficient grace to all to give us the choice under any circumstance is evil. Besides Jesus is not schizo. He has one will and one will only. He always does the will of the Father. His human nature and divine nature are always willing the same thing in perfect accord and obedience to the Father.

And Christ did not die for all men without exception. If he was the substitutionary sacrifice for all men without exception, then all men without exception would be saved.

Finally, there is the problem with, how can there be a secret other will if you believe it is revealed God doesn't want to save all? It's not a secret then.

The fact that God does not wish to save all men without exception is part of his revealed will, not his secret will.

So such attempts of Calvinists are completely absurd and evil to say the least.

Are all Calvinists evil? Ettiquette Rule 10. Be Cordial.

Who know how corrupted man's heart really is! But we do know it is not Totally depraved. Otherwise, nobody sufficiently could receive what Jesus did for us by the grace of God.

This is true. Without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, no sinner can repent and trust Christ for his salvation. Praise be to God that the Holy Spirit sovereignly regenerates those who God elected in eternity past and those for whom Christ died.

By the way, I believe, like many Calvinists, that the elect constitute the large majority of the human race. Most Arminians believe that the elect are a small remnant of the human race. So who presents the more loving picture of God: the One who saves the large majority of mankind, or the One who saves a small remnant?

The Calvinist shuts his mind down to the verses of Scripture that show God is pleading with man.

No, there are plenty of Reformed exegetical treatments of all the passages you have in mind, if you would consult with the standard Reformed commentaries.

So that is how a Calvinist deals with the contradiction between pleading with men and no alleged free will, by denying Scripture; that is, by denying free will to exist or is real, and by denying God is pleading with men.

Calvinists affirm that man is a morally free agent, but his will is bound by sin, until he is saved.

It sounds like you are confused as to what Calvinists teach and what we do not teach.

Of course, their very choice to assume this is itself a fact of their free will which some choose and others choose not to believe. Test this out. You can change your mind if you like. The truly sad part in such a view is that to assume you cant repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated, then you will never repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. You have put up a wall between yourself and God.

And the only person who can break through this wall of sin is the Holy Spirit. The sinner cannot do it himself, only a heart that has been regenerated (given new life) by the Holy Spirit can flee to Christ in faith.

If God pleads with men, free will must be true. If free will is true then God must plead with men. But if God pleads not with men, free will must not be true. If free will is not true, then God is not allowed to plead with men, otherwise it would be a pretentious charade.

God does not beg sinners to repent, he COMMANDS them to repent. “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Whether they are willing to or not is besides the point. The divine Lawgiver’s holiness requires repentance of lawbreakers.

If free will is true, which seems more reasonable in light of the above evidenced facts, because God does plead with us, thus giving us the choice, then would determinism have to be false? But if determinism is false, then how can God foresee all things like all the hairs on our head (and the hairs you choose to pluck out or graft back in at any given moment)? Moreover, how can God truly create a person with free will for doesn't the person's choices have to be created, provisioned for, and caused for any given situation?

I, like most Calvinists, am a compatibilist. Both human freedom and divine determinism are compatible with each other. That would be a good topic for a new thread. Are you familiar with compatibilism?

Therefore, we must accept, no matter how much it hurts our brain to think about it (and is best not to think about that which you don't have enough information yet to resolve), that both free will (somehow, someway) is true and determinism is true: that is, there is a cause and effect to everything at the same time, free will is true. Nothing, though, is truly random. So accept free will is real and determinism is real even though you don't know how God reconciles them.

These two assertions prove no difficulty for the compatibilist, but they are flatly contradictory for you since you affirm libertarian freewill. Which will you jettison, man’s libertarian freewill, or God’s sovereignty?

God is proven by nature and Jesus is proven to be God, so these are not the issues. Moreover, the issue wondering if you are saved by assuming regeneration before repentance and faith, for God will never save you that way. God only saves one way. You would have to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. The issue is trying to understand how God reconciles His infinite foreknowledge with free will and accepting true salvation.

The Calvinist affirms that regeneration precedes conversion (repentance and faith). The Arminian reverses the order. Another topic for a new thread.

Perhaps God has not given you the capacity to understand since no human being has ever been able to reconcile free will with His infinite foreknowledge, but since we know they both exist, we hold the course.

No one has ever been able to reconcile them because they are mutually exclusive. Is it reasonable to affirm mutually exclusive assertions?

The best you can say is this: God works outside of time so He can see all things. He created the world we live in, all its provisions: all its laws, functions, and cause and effects. He knows all our options in any given scenario or situation and environment. Yet free will is true. You can go choose to do something in the next 30 seconds you have never done before in your life. That option is afforded to you. So free will is really true.

Not according to Scripture. The sinner is spiritually dead and enslaved to sin. If he were not, why would he need to be born again? Do the living need to be born again, or the dead?

The best explanation I have ever seen to attempt to reconcile free will with God's infinite all-knowing foreknowledge is called Molinism. Though its author in the 16th century was a non-OSASer, I believe you can apply it to OSAS Arminians.

Indeed, Luis de Molina was a Jesuit priest. The Arminians are running to Rome for their theology! :)

The way to apply it is simply to say God has all His programs (like in the movie Matrix),

I love that trilogy, but the first one was the best. There’re a lot of biblical undertones in it, along with a lot of pagan ones as well.

so He knows what any person will do in any given situation based on antecedent causes, and free-will is really free, because God saves to the uttermost; that is, He saves the most and damns the least.

Do you believe the majority of mankind will be saved?

This point is what establishes free will: when God saves the most and damns the least.

You’re saying God could not have actualized a world where all people without exception were saved? If not, his omnipotence is called into question. If so, why didn’t he actualize the world wherein all would be saved? That calls into question his omnibenevolence.

You’re straddling the horns of a dilemma.

He does everything He can to save a person.

Except create a world wherein all are saved . . .

He is never unrighteous. He is always righteous and holy in all His dealings. Whereas in Calvinism, God does not save the most and damn the least, but passes over many or even double predestines them to Hell, and irresistibly imposes salvation on others without giving them the free will choice either. Very sad.

You mischaracterize your opponent. You're burning a strawman.

Calvinism is the evil that the body of Christ, the Church faces.

I think the Church’s number one enemy is theological liberalism, not evangelical Arminianism or evangelical Calvinism. But ask yourself this question: are liberals Arminian in their soteriology, or Reformed in their soteriology? Answer: they are Arminian in their soteriology. Something to ponder.

It is what Satan will get the Antichrist to use against us.

The Antichrist died 2000 years ago. But that’s another topic as well.

Good website, Troy, thanks.

[Churchwork]

Charles, please do not post in the Christian forum sections, since you are not a Christian. You can discuss these subjects, just not in the Christians category for we want to maintain purity in those forums.

Calvinists don’t argue that free will is illusory, but that the sinner’s will is not free to begin with; it is enslaved to sin.

The problem with that theory is that there are no verses in Scripture that teach Total depravity, nor is it our personal experience. We can do good things even believe on Christ for God has graced us with that choice, providing us with sufficient grace to have the choice. Certainly, man is depraved, enslaved and under bondage, but not Totally depraved.

You’re describing fatalism, which is not the same as theistic determinism. Calvinists deny the former but affirm the latter.

Try to understand how you are fatalistic, which is not Christian determinism. In Christian determinism, God stands back and affords man a number of choices in any given scenario, yet God knows all our choices because He operates outside of time. Everyone according to your belief is Totally depraved so some have to be selected irresistibly if any are to be saved and the rest are denied sufficient grace to have the choice. This is fatalism. From birth they are bred for Hell or made to be saved and there was nothing they could do about it. What love is this?

Different Calvinists will argue fatalism in different ways and at different points, invoking fatalism at some portions but not others, but however sneaky they want to be it is all in vain, for at the end of the day your god doesn't provide sufficient grace for all to have the choice. That's what makes your god different from God of the Bible.

No we wouldn’t. Have you read any Reformed authors on the subject?

Some Calvinists take the position free will is not free will. Other Calvinists will claim free will is free, but Christians don't consider what they describe as free will to be free will. Yet others have a double tongue, for you said "the sinner's will is not free" and turned right around and said "no we wouldn't" say "A Calvinist will respond by saying free will is not real." There is yet another group of Calvinists who will say God died for all, but doesn't provide sufficient grace for all, that He has two wills: a secret and a revealed will. For God would be contradicting Himself if He behaved that way. All these problems arise from the false teaching of Total depravity, but Total depravity is derived from worshiping a false God. This false God of Calvinism is like the god of Modalism. Because a Modalist can't understand how God can be 3 Persons, they come up with strange ideas. Likewise, a Calvinist comes up with his strange ideas like TULIP, because he doesn't know how to explain how a person can have free will while God has infinite foreknowledge. I don't know either, but I don't devise TULIP. I stick with the clear teaching of Scripture: OSAS Arminian. God pleads with all, because He provides sufficient grace for all to have the choice.

God does have a secret will – that which he has not revealed to us, but it does not contradict his revealed will which is found in the pages of Scripture. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." (Deut. 29:29)

Certainly there are things God will withhold for Himself. Like, for example, we don't know exactly how God gives us God-consciousness. That is not the point. The point is your god would contradict himself if he claimed to plead with all but doesn't provide sufficient grace for all to have the choice. If he teaches Total depravity, then this is the problem with your god.

God does not wish to save all men without exception. If he did, all men without exception would be saved. That is universalism, which both Arminians and Calvinists deny.

It does not follow logically if God wanted all men to be saved they would all be saved, for if man has free will and God is a righteous God, He can't coerce people into salvation and must allow them the free-choice to receive or reject His offer of salvation. But if your god was God, then he has to save everyone, because it is evil to send someone to Hell without any recourse or opportunity for salvation just as it is evil to irresistibly imposes salvation on someone. Do you see how your god is evil because he does not wish to save everyone without exception? It would be like 10 people drowning and needing your help, but you only throw out a buoy to 5 of them. You would be negligent towards the other 5. It doesn't give you glory. In fact, you would be charged with manslaughter. What is a glory to your god is an evil act to God of the Bible.

It may not be reasonable, for there is a way which seems right to a man, but it leads to death. The better question is, is it scriptural? God saves those whom he chooses to save, the elect.

The question is not whether God saves His elect, but whether the elect are saved unconditionally or conditionally. And Scripture reveals God died for all our sins providing sufficient grace for all, therefore, to have the choice. The reason you take your position that your god doesn't provide sufficient grace for all is because you are not born-again, and you are not born-again because you refuse to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. Naturally you will have a warped view of God's righteousness and holiness. Just know God's standards are not less than ours and it is special pleading to claim otherwise.

And Christ did not die for all men without exception. If he was the substitutionary sacrifice for all men without exception, then all men without exception would be saved.

Christ did die for all men without exception. As we have seen it does not follow necessarily all men would be saved unless the god you are speaking of irresistibly imposes salvation. Do you see how illogical that is? You have assumed something about God by claiming an extreme view of sovereignty whereby if He died for all then all would be saved, but to Christians that is an evil god because irresistible grace is not a free gift to be freely received.

The fact that God does not wish to save all men without exception is part of his revealed will, not his secret will.

That's a switcharoo, but I'll address it. No longer is God's secret will not wanting to save all but His secret will is He wants to save all!? And His revealed will is He doesn't want to save all? That's evil. And it contradicts Scripture, for Jesus died for all. If your god is not to contradict himself, then his secret would necessarily mean as well, he doesn't want to save all, but again, that's evil and not really secret since God doesn't contradict Himself. Realize your spirit is dead to God because it does not have sensitivity in your conscience to realize why it is evil to irresistibly impose salvation on some and deny sufficient grace to others to have the choice.

Are all Calvinists evil? Ettiquette Rule 10. Be Cordial.

Since all Calvinists teach falsely, then it is most certainly evil. God does not and never will save a person the way you want to be saved. You're not being cordial by accusing a person who exposes false teaching of not being cordial.

This is true. Without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, no sinner can repent and trust Christ for his salvation. Praise be to God that the Holy Spirit sovereignly regenerates those who God elected in eternity past and those for whom Christ died.

I trust in Christ for my salvation and only then was I regenerated. Since there are no verses in Scripture for regeneration preceding repentance and faith, your teaching is false. What you call regeneration, the Holy Spirit points as being the evil spirit, Satanic grace and a false conversion experience.

By the way, I believe, like many Calvinists, that the elect constitute the large majority of the human race. Most Arminians believe that the elect are a small remnant of the human race. So who presents the more loving picture of God: the One who saves the large majority of mankind, or the One who saves a small remnant?

Your liberal faith is a reflection of your sin nature and your acquiescence to it, as you admit you don't have to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. Talk about low standards.

No, there are plenty of Reformed exegetical treatments of all the passages you have in mind, if you would consult with the standard Reformed commentaries.

I have never seen any Calvinist justify any of his beliefs or make the connection the Reformation had anything to do with Calvinism.

Calvinists affirm that man is a morally free agent, but his will is bound by sin, until he is saved.

It sounds like you are confused as to what Calvinists teach and what we do not teach.

You're confused by the fact that if you are Totally depraved, then for your god to save some and deny his kind of grace to others is coercion and insufficient. Praise God Total depravity is false.

And the only person who can break through this wall of sin is the Holy Spirit. The sinner cannot do it himself, only a heart that has been regenerated (given new life) by the Holy Spirit can flee to Christ in faith.

The Holy Spirit will not coerce you to force you to give up the notion you were regenerated causing you to repent and believe. The Holy Spirit will provide you with sufficient grace and conviction that is a false salvation and leave it for you to decide if you want to repent and believe in the true Christ. God promises then He will regenerate you. Since there are no verses for Total depravity or a god who does not provide sufficient grace for all, you can know unequivocally, you are not a child of God since you don't care for God of the Bible but seek after some counterfeit.

God does not beg sinners to repent, he COMMANDS them to repent. “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Whether they are willing to or not is besides the point. The divine Lawgiver’s holiness requires repentance of lawbreakers.

When God provides sufficient grace this is not begging. What it is, is God doing all He ought to do righteously to convince and convict the person which includes commanding to repent. Commanding to repent does not imply irresistibly imposing salvation or telling people they can be saved, giving them false hope when your god is unwilling to give them the grace and misleads them on. To command everyone to repent is because everyone has been provided the grace to be able to do so. The very point is whether they are willing or not. It all hinges on man's free will, for this is how God has a real relationship with man. His will is the very center of his soul. A divine lawgiver does not demand repentance but then not provide the grace to all people to be able to repent or resist repenting for that matter. Such a god would be sadistic. This is the god you worship and is why you are going to Hell.

I, like most Calvinists, am a compatibilist. Both human freedom and divine determinism are compatible with each other. That would be a good topic for a new thread. Are you familiar with compatibilism?

Calvinism is not adhering to compatibilism, because it is not compatible to allow for free will while at the same time irresistibly imposing salvation. I do not know how God gives us free will to receive what Jesus did for us on the cross and how He can foresee all my choices, but that is no problem since God has His secret knowledge. We can't know all things.

These two assertions prove no difficulty for the compatibilist, but they are flatly contradictory for you since you affirm libertarian freewill. Which will you jettison, man’s libertarian freewill, or God’s sovereignty?

I, nor any Arminians I know, believe in libertarian free will for I believe God's provisions encompass my choices. Do you see how it is not compatibilism to teach irresistible grace and free will? Your extreme view of depravity and sovereignty betrays you. God doesn't need to be an evil tyrant who forces the situation. Christians don't consider this free will either.

The Calvinist affirms that regeneration precedes conversion (repentance and faith). The Arminian reverses the order. Another topic for a new thread.

This is why you are not born again because you are unwilling to repent and believe in Christ to be saved, that is, regenerated. You have a selfish salvation one where you don't have to repent or even believe in Christ. Whereas Christians are truly born-again because we came to the cross as helpless sinners to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and so were regenerated. May you have a conscience one day to appreciate this.

No one has ever been able to reconcile them because they are mutually exclusive. Is it reasonable to affirm mutually exclusive assertions?

God can have infinite foreknowledge while man has free will. They are not mutually exclusive. The Bible affirms God has infinite foreknowledge and man has free will. Why false teach they are mutually exclusive?

Not according to Scripture. The sinner is spiritually dead and enslaved to sin. If he were not, why would he need to be born again? Do the living need to be born again, or the dead?

The Bible never equates spiritually dead to Total inability. Dead means lack of communication and propensity. The issue is not whether man needs to be born again but whether you are willing to repent to the cross and believe in Christ so God will regenerate you.

Indeed, Luis de Molina was a Jesuit priest. The Arminians are running to Rome for their theology!

The idea is God provides various programs upon programs, but at some point leaves a number of options open that represents our free will. Don't get caught up in a word, but understand the principle behind free will. I don't actually believe in Molinism in the sense that I don't see the need for infinite worlds and world ensembles to pick the one that is the best to save the most and damn the least, because God does not need to rely on comparisons. He intuitively knows what is the best for our world that He actualizes. Where Molinism gets particularly dangerous is the Calvinism Molinism version which causes everything, e.g. forcing the alleged saved and passing over the alleged reprobate with no opportunity for salvation. What love is this?

Do you believe the majority of mankind will be saved?

No. I believe most Calvinists are going to Hell and they are the most despicable people. Realize there are those who come so close to God yet turn back unto perdition. That's Calvinism. So much grace given yet you still reject God's love.

You’re saying God could not have actualized a world where all people without exception were saved? If not, his omnipotence is called into question. If so, why didn’t he actualize the world wherein all would be saved? That calls into question his omnibenevolence. You’re straddling the horns of a dilemma.

You're missing the point. If God only wanted to create 5 people they might get along and could feasibly be saved to accept salvation. But God wants more people than that. Once you get into the idea of other worlds, you run into the problem of hypothetical fanciful conjecture. There is no need for other world comparisons. But God would be evil if there was a world where He would have saved everyone and didn't save everyone in this world. Omnipotence is never called into question when God doesn't force salvation on people, for that would be evil to force it. Nor is His omnibenevolence a problem, for again, He can not violate His own righteousness. Again, what Calvinists construe as love, Christians consider evil.

Except create a world wherein all are saved . . .

God is not a god of robots.

You mischaracterize your opponent. You're burning a strawman.

How so? You don't say. All you had was your coy response. Let me repeat what I said and see if you can address it this time...

He is never unrighteous. He is always righteous and holy in all His dealings. Whereas in Calvinism, God does not save the most and damn the least, but passes over many or even double predestines them to Hell, and irresistibly imposes salvation on others without giving them the free will choice either. Very sad.

The truth hurts. Truth is not unreasonable, but it is unloved, without God's love.

I think the Church’s number one enemy is theological liberalism, not evangelical Arminianism or evangelical Calvinism. But ask yourself this question: are liberals Arminian in their soteriology, or Reformed in their soteriology? Answer: they are Arminian in their soteriology. Something to ponder.

Before you said most people are saved. That is theological liberalism. The most evil thing is in Christendom is Calvinism, teaching people they don't have to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated; alas, they are even told they cannot to take them into even greater deception. I am not aware of any liberal Arminians. And there was nothing to Reform, for we were solid throughout. We did not hijack the Reformation, justification by faith, and try to make it about Calvinism. How silly. I actually think such antics are quite unethical. The reason why what you believe is so evil is because it darkens your mind, lowers your conscience and turns people off of Christ by misrepresenting God of the Bible.

The Antichrist died 2000 years ago. But that’s another topic as well.

Cat's coming out of the bag. There are many other false teachings behind your Calvinism, namely, you think the Antichrist is not coming. Are you amillennial? Read Revelation 20.3. Neron Kaisar (666 in Aramaic) is who the Antichrist refers to, and he will be resurrected for end-times when Satan lets him out of the pit.

"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? " (Rev. 13.4).

This beast is the Antichrist. The dragon is Satan. You'll be deceived by them and the False Prophet in the coming days. The Antichrist hooks you with Calvinism.