The Great Commission negates Calvinism/predestination teaching

To begin I shall start with…. . Compatiblist Clarification: For the same reasons a Liberal journalist will only refer to a ‘pro-lifer’ as ‘anti-choice advocate’ and a Conservative journalist will only refer to a ‘pro-choicer’ as a ‘Anti-life advocate’ I will be referring to what Con terms ‘Compatibelist free will’ as ‘Pantheist free will’, and I accept his term ‘libertarian free will’ and will be using it to refer to the what I spoke of when I said ‘Free Will’ in round 1. Con’s description of the Compatibelist since of free will is only free in the since that a Panthiest would believe in. The Pantheist rejects speaking of God in any terms other than generalities, they see God and the universe as one and the same or as ‘the whole show’ as C. S. Lewis put it in his book ‘Miracles’. Everything being apart of ‘the whole show’ all things are caused by God/the universe. C. S. Lewis charges Pantheism as practically being ‘Religion itself’ in the since of what we mean when we say Religion is an enemy of the church that threatens to take it over. C. S. Lewis also stated he considered Nazi German worship of a great Racial spirit a form of Pantheism just ‘trunicated for barbarians. Now I know it makes no real substantial point other than a ad-homien fallacy I suppose to make the comparison cause after all Calvinism is not Pantheism……But they are the same in there since of understanding free will, so Compatibleist free will can be called accurately Pantheist free will, so for rhetorical persuasive reasons that are shamelessly manipulative, I will referring to it as Pantheist free will (also its easier to spell). Pantheism Freedom and Libertarian ‘degrees of freedom’: Con makes an interesting twisted case on how the Great Commission actually indicates Calvinism and not Wesleyenism because admitting you have to be a role at all in there choice for salvation through your preaching means there free choice is not made out of true libertarian free choice because it was influenced by your preaching. I’m not sure what the name would be for this fallacy, but basically by bringing up ‘degree’s’ of freedom relative to the amount of influence you have on yourself, while the issue is far more complicated sounding, the issue itself has not been changed. Is your actions ultimately still not predetermined by non-controlled influences, can your choice you make go either way things left as they are? Yes, then its still libertarian and degree’s or no degree’s your choices are up to you not your influences. Meanwhile consider the implication of what you are saying from a Pantheist free will perspective. When I choose to sin, it is because according to your own words ‘determined by the net effect of all of our psychological states (including our desires, motives, biases, inclinations, preferences, etc. )’. So my desires (among other things) were so strong I could not possibly choose any other way than to sin in that particular instance. Do I even have to cite the well known comforting scripture that belief stands in stark contrast to? 1 Corinthians 10:13 God will not allow us no temptation we cannot overcome. Ether that is true or Calvinism is but I cannot see how both can be. For from your Pantheist view of free will if I could have overcome a temptation to sin, then I would have because my desires along with other causes would have resulted in my resistance winning out. And my desires been of such to cause me to overcome the temptation to sin, then it wasn’t truly a temptation was it, for temptation by its very nature is our desires pulling toward the sin, but according to Con the actual total net whole of my desires was not to sin it was really to be holy, if they really were to sin then I would have. Either way that plays out Calvinism and 1 Corinthians 10:13 cannot both be true. The Great Commission: Now while I’ll mention other passages as far as they are relevant to what comes up this debate like the one I just mentioned in 1 Corinthians, like I said at the start, the focus of the debate and the resolution is the Great Commission. My opponents argument is that its perfectly fine under the Pantheist free will view that Jesus would give the great commission to his disciples to preach the gospel to every creature on earth because they are part of the predestined chain of events that lead many to salvation, through there preaching and teaching, the elect will hear, and choose to believe, that we do not know who is elect and who is made for destruction so it makes since that we have to take the message to everyone. After we take the message to all its up to God to make the non-elect ignore the gospel and the elect hear and obey it. My response to this specifically if Calvinism were true we should actually be able to have expected that when Jesus gave the great commission he would have included your explanation in his own words like ‘because you cannot know who is elect and who is made for destruction, so you must share the gospel with the elect and the dogs alike’ or something to that effect, because this is a kind of obvious question big deal kind of question Jesus would have know should come up if Calvinism is true. If Wesleyenism is true however, then we should expect Jesus would have given the great commission phrased exactly as he did. The Ezekiel Analogy: yes it is part of an analogy, because it’s about God’s same command to go out and witness put in context of on a personal level along with consequences of disobedience. Con gives the same response to the Ezekiel Analogy though, but this time because Con has applied the view of everything being apart of a chain of events controlled by God, It makes the problem all the clearer. Con admitted that Ezekiel would be responsible for the city and the city would not be if he chose to keep silent based on the reasoning that he is the determining factor in that chain of events. Ezekiel, should he keep silent, though he has committed no sins is guilty for the cities sins if he does not speak up against them to the city, if he does not warn them to repent. Con has thus admitted a prior chain that ultimately determined actions at the end of the chain is responsible for those actions in such a way that the city is not. Thus carry this though to its logical Calvinist extreme. Ultimately it could never be Ezekiel’s fault, for Ezekiel’s choice itself to not preach would not be his own doing. God is the one who failed to make Ezekiel choose to obey his own commands and thus it is God who is responsible for the City. This is a big deal because it means when God tells a prophet to go and preach the gospel or he will be punished for the cities sins that never herd it because of the prophets refusal, and the prophet does not do it, then he did not do it because it was the will of God that he would not do it since that is the way God designed him to choose, and while it was really the will of God that the prophet not preach God told the prophet it was is will in the form of a command to go preach. So Calvinism naturally makes a liar out of God in every instance of our disobedience to his commands about what is his will for us. And by this same exact line of reasoning Calvinism thus makes a liar out of Jesus when he gave the great commission, for Jesus told the disciples to preach the gospel to every creature, thus including the non-elect, and when they go carry Jesus message to the non-elect, and say ‘Jesus died for your sins’ they are lying because according to Calvinism Jesus literally did not die for any of the non-elects sins, only the elects sins did he die for. So long as Jesus did not include the caveat ‘so long as you are not made for destruction’ Jesus is lying to every non-elect person his disciples preach the gospel to.