The Great Commission negates Calvinism/predestination teaching

It's a rare pleasure to have your opponent admit that he's committing a fallacy. That way, you don't have to bother to address it. But in the interest of precision, I think we should at least name the fallacy. In using a dysphemism ("Pantheist free will"), Pro is committing the fallacy of poisoning the well.[1] The object in poisoning the well is to create a bias in the reader before the reader gets to the arguments. As Pro admitted, it is a form of manipulation. But I appreciate his candor. Some new arguments Before responding to Pro's recent post, I want to throw out a few additional arguments for why I don't think the great commission negates predestination. 1. The gospel is not just an invitation for people to embrace the gospel. It's also a proclamation about Jesus Christ. Given God's desire to make a name for himself, even among non-believers (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:8, Ezekiel 20:9, Psalm 106:8, etc.), it should not surprise us that God would want his greatest act to be proclaimed among all people, whether he intends to save all of them or not. According to Paul, "we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing" (1 Corinthians 2:15). 2. The gospel does sometimes have a good effect on the non-elect, restraining their sin. Many people who were not Christians have been influenced by Jesus' moral teachings. But the gospel also reveals the depth of depravity among people, proving that "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). 3. In the great commission, Jesus commanded his apostles to preach the gospel to every creature. But he said this after talking about the unforgivable sin of blaspheme. Presumably, there were some people who were actually guilty of that sin or who have been guilty of that sin. If Jesus didn't think there was any inconsistency in preaching the gospel to all creatures, even though some had committed the unforgivable sin and therefore could not be saved, then we shouldn't think so either. My old arguments In the last round, I made three arguments against Pro's point of view. Let's see how he answered them. Argument from secondary causes Here, I argued that the great commission is consistent with predestination because preaching is the means through which God calls the elect. Although Pro acknowledged that I had made this argument, he gave no response to it. Argument from the unknown elect Here, I argued that the great commission is consistent with predestination because we don't know ahead of time who are elect and who are not, and it it perfectly consistent for Jesus to have us preach to all people, leaving it to God to decide who will accept the message and who will reject it. Pro doesn't dispute that this explanation solves the supposed inconsistency. Instead, he claims that if this explanation is true, we should expect that Jesus would've included it in the great commission. This response fails for a few reasons. 1. It's highly speculative because it's an unsubstantiated assertion about what Jesus would do. There are lots of things Jesus taught without explaining. When his disciples asked why he spoke to the crowds in parables, Jesus said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted" (Matthew 13:10). Also, in the bread of life discourse (John 6:26-65), many people left Jesus (v. 66) when Jesus said they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, but Jesus didn't bother to explain himself to them. He let them go. 2. The gospels are not exhaustive accounts of what Jesus said and did, so for all we know, he did explain himself. 3. Jesus already explained that his own sheep will hear his voice and follow him, whereas others do not believe because they are not his sheep (John 10:26-27). This is essentially the same thing I'm saying--that the elect will recognize their shepherd when he is preached to them, but those who do not belong to Jesus will not. Jesus preached to both groups, and so should we. Argument from the nature of the will Here, I argued that the great commission is more consistent with compatibilism than with libertarianism. The reason is because preaching is superfluous unless it has an influence over people's choices. Under libertarianism, no influence from preaching is sufficient to bring about conversion, but under compatibilism it is, because we always choose according to our strongest motivation. Pro responds by pointing out that regardless of how strong an influence is, as long as it isn't sufficient to determine choice, the person still has libertarian freedom. I agree with him, but that doesn't address my argument. It is still the case that libertarian freedom comes in degrees and that the stronger the influence from preaching, the less hand libertarian freedom has in our choice. Under compatibilism, a person's conversion can be explained by a desire that arose due to hearing the gospel preached. Under libertarianism, no antecedent conditon is sufficient to explain a person's conversion. Pro also claims that 1 Corinthians 10:13 is inconsistent with compatibilism. But this debate isn't over whether compatibilism or libertarianism are true. This debate is over whether predestination (which entails compatibilism) is consistent with the great commission. I'd love to provide an answer to this, but then I'd be wasting precious space responding to an irrelevant point. Argument from Ezekiel The argument from Ezekiel is Pro's only argument for his point of view. Even though Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, he is mostly on the defensive. In the last round, I argued that given determinism, as long as Ezekiel is part of the causal chain, he has everything to do with what happens to the city. So preaching is not superfluous under predestination. In his response, Con focused on irrelevant points, like whether Ezekiel is morally responsible for his choice. That's a great topic, but it's beside the point. The point is whether Ezekiel has anything to do with the city repenting, and whether preaching the gospel has any effect on people converting. Pro makes a relevant point, though. He argues that Calvinism makes God out to be a liar because on the one hand, the will of God may be that a person doesn't repent, but on the other hand, he tells us that his will is that we repent. But this is easily reconciled by pointing out a distinction between God's sovereign will (what God does) and his moral will (what God commands). God's moral will may be that people repent while his sovereign will is that they don't repent, so there is no lie. Pro says Calvinism makes Jesus out to be a liar because the great commission requires us to tell the non-elect that Jesus died for their sins when, in fact, he didn't. But nowhere in the Bible (including the apostlic preaching recorded in Acts) does it say we should present the gospel by telling everybody that Jesus died for their sins. When presenting the gospel, Paul says, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:1-3) and Jesus tell us that he laid down his life for his sheep (John 10:11). That's what we have to tell people. ConclusionI want to urge the voters to keep their eye on the ball. The resolution of this debate is that Calvinism/predestination/compatibilism is inconsistent with the great commission. It's not over whether Calvinism/predestination/compatibilism is true. It's not over whether morality is consistent with Calvinism/predestination/compatibilism. It's not over whether people are responsible for their own choices under Calvinism/predestination/compatibilism. The question is whether it makes sense for Jesus to have commanded his disciples to preach the gospel to all creatures, given that some people are predestined to salvation and some are not. As long as God can use preaching is a means through which he brings about the conversion of the elect, there is no problem for Calvinism. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...