ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[patman]

RobE, one more thing...

RobE, one more thing...

You asked how your theology only has the appearance of freewill.

I hope this will explain how.

If I made a clock, the second hand will work according to how I made it. So will the hour and minute hand. Even though they move on their own, their inter workings are exactly as I made. I made it knowing it will tick forward and keep time. I know in an hour from now it will read that it is an hour later.

So I know the future actions of this clock I made, and I caused it to tick. It has no freedom to do anything else because this is how I made it.

Lets say Adam is this clock. And lets say God knows all of the future. The outcome of how Adam was made would be intentional. Had God made Adam a little shorter or Eve a little later, it could have changed everything. But by God acting as he did, knowing it would result how it did, freewill is only an appearance.

Instead of being freedom, it is a machine. Each gear, like a clock, turning in time at the right place to produce an outcome. :dizzy:

I hope this shows how freewill is only an illusion in the true S.V. logic.

 

[RobE]

Each man is responsible for violations of whichever righteous Law is legislating at the time of his existence. So, for this present dispensation, the Law that legislates is Paul's gospel. All men will be judged according to Paul's gospel (Ro 2:16), i.e. the righteous standard of this dispensation. The reason each man is responsible is not because of free will, but because God has commanded all men everywhere to submit to Him and to yield all of their knowledge to His governance. Those who rebel will be held accountable for that rebellion. In other words, rather than eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, each man living in the time of this dispensation is to go to God and His Word for the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. in particular, the righteous standard of this dispensation.

Isn't submission an act of free will?

So, just as Patman has suggested, the breaking of God's law is the standard for righteousness. My own position would suggest that the law is just the action of righteousness, as justice is the action of being just. That the law emerges from an immutable essence and might be changed, even though the essence behind the law does not.

I asked: Clete sees God planning the men and their resultant actions as the same thing if foreknowledge exists. Why is/isn't He right?

Hilston's response: He is right. The Bible's reference to "foreknowledge" is a figure of speech that describes God's decrees (i.e. His plans regarding men and their actions).​

Let me clarify by re-directing the question. Why is God not responsible for sin if God planned the men and their resultant sinful actions?

Remember the response above: The reason each man is responsible is not because of free will

Does Eckhardt believe that God's actions are immutable?

I doubt it. It's often hard to pin the answer to this question down since some of the writings specifically say they are not; and some of them say they are; just as Clete's previous examples.

They say, for truthfulness to be genuine, one must be capable of lying. This is a humanistic dualism that is imposed by Open Theists upon God Himself, contrary to scripture, which says God cannot lie.

Well, I lean towards this being true even though the scriptures explicitly say that God can't lie. Lee and I discussed this on another thread. My current position would say that God can't lie because His immutable essence won't lie; not because He is incapacitated in some way by His structure or function. This position allows me to say that God is all powerful in that He is able to do anything, but isn't willing to do anything. This is my exact argument against foreknowledge eliminating free will.

Another example of this would be Jesus Christ being fully man, which is a position we all hold in common. Was Jesus God able to sin or not? Isn't His refusal of sin the basis of His worthiness?

Rob

 

[RobE]

You asked how your theology only has the appearance of freewill.

I hope this will explain how.

If I made a clock, the second hand will work according to how I made it. So will the hour and minute hand. Even though they move on their own, their inter workings are exactly as I made. I made it knowing it will tick forward and keep time. I know in an hour from now it will read that it is an hour later.

So I know the future actions of this clock I made, and I caused it to tick. It has no freedom to do anything else because this is how I made it.

Lets say Adam is this clock. And lets say God knows all of the future. The outcome of how Adam was made would be intentional. Had God made Adam a little shorter or Eve a little later, it could have changed everything. But by God acting as he did, knowing it would result how it did, freewill is only an appearance.

Instead of being freedom, it is a machine. Each gear, like a clock, turning in time at the right place to produce an outcome. :dizzy:

I hope this shows how freewill is only an illusion in the true S.V. logic.

It doesn't because the clock is unable to act on its own responsiblity as Adam was. Understand that God figuring out what Adam would do before the future existed for Adam; is not the same as God making Adam do what He decided to do when the future arrived.

Rob

 

[RobE]

Clete,

Wouldn't it be better to determine what beliefs Hilston holds in common with Calvinism before we use that theology to argue against him?

Rob

 

[Clete]

They were said to be his essential attributes, though, which then motivated me to list other attributes as essential. Yet what you say is true, perfect love would mean perfect holiness, and perfect truthfulness and righteousness, and even strength ("love is the strongest force in the world", Corrie ten Boom's father).

Meaningless cliche's aside, I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that what I've said is true. One might have expected you to have thought it through before objecting in the first place, but c’est la vie.

But if love is not perfect, it does not always mean strong, nor need a person who is caring necessarily be righteous, either, nor need love mean perfect truthfulness, and so on.

This comment makes no sense.

But the point is that we cannot say that strength is not an essential attribute of God, it is not inessential, though it may be derived from another attribute.

What are you talking about Lee? You already agreed that what I said includes all these other issues. The point is that God's power takes a back seat to His love. God is loving FIRST and powerfully so because He never excercises His power in an unloving way. Thus God's infinite power is subbordinate to His perfect love. It really isn't difficult to understand unless you are trying to assign Jim's wacko definitions to these terms.

I believe indeed they are all bound up together, some theological people have argued that God's holiness is his primary attribute, or his glory, or (as it seems you do here) his love. I would expect a case can be made for all of these, and no attribute is really independent, and each one may in a way be the source of all the others.

What you believe or suspect is irrelivent. The Bible explicitely states that God's authority (that is the exercise of His power) is founded upon His righteousness (i.e. His love).

Well, maybe, which verse do you mean?

The one's that I have already quoted. If you are going to engage the conversation, it would help if you would actually read my posts thoroughly. These verses were even included in a portion of my post which you quoted when you initially objected to my position. The verses are quoted again below. Notice also in verse 14 of Psalms 89 that the inspired psalmist makes the claim that mercy and truth (i.e. righteousness) go before God's face (i.e. His glory).

Psalm 89:13 You have a mighty arm;
Strong is Your hand, and high is Your right hand.
14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Mercy and truth go before Your face.

Psalm 97:1 The LORD reigns;
Let the earth rejoice;
Let the multitude of isles be glad!
2 Clouds and darkness surround Him;
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete,

Wouldn't it be better to determine what beliefs Hilston holds in common with Calvinism before we use that theology to argue against him?

Rob

I've been debating Jim for years now. Jim is, in spite of his ridiculous protestations to the contrary, a hard core Calvinist. There is nothing of substance that they believe that he doesn't.

Jim believes that predestination is exhaustive to the point that there are no rogue atoms in the universe, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes that God is utterly immutable, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes that God is impassible because he is immutable, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes that God is simple, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes that man is totally depraved, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes in unconditional election, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes Jesus died only for the sins of the elect and not for the sins of the entire population of the world, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes in the doctrine of regeneration and irresistible grace, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes all those who will be saved were predestined to be saved and that therefore none will or even can be lost, as do the Calvinists.

Jim puts his own little wacky twist to all of this but so does practically every other Calvinist in the world. According to Jim there has never been a Calvinist since Calvin because according to his logic, if there is anything that Calvin taught that you disagree with at all then that removes you from under the Calvinist umbrella. Jim is undoubtedly a Calvinist and his insistence to the contrary is only so much more proof that he is insane.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I agree with your annotations up until verse 32.

OK, fair enough.

I have read it over about 10 times now and I just can't see how your take makes any sense.

Why would Paul sum up a discussion about two groups and leave out the main group he has been discussing for the entire chapter?

Any way... I will think about it some more latter when I am not so preoccupied with BR XI and some other stuff.

Disobedience to God's prescriptive will is true disobedience. There's no such thing as "obeying" or "disobeying" God's decretive will. It is inexorable.

Can of worms alert! atrol: Can of worms alert!

And of course the obvious question to follow a statement like that would be...

Does God's "prescriptive will" obey/follow His "decretive will" in every and all cases?

If so, His "prescriptive will" would only exist in appearance as per His "decretive will".

Thanks guys, fun stuff! (it's my favorite topic in case you didn't know)

 

[Bob Hill]

Clete,

Thanks for this truth.

I've been debating Jim for years now. Jim is, in spite of his ridiculous protestations to the contrary, a hard core Calvinist. There is nothing of substance that they believe that he doesn't.

Jim believes that predestination is exhaustive to the point that there are no rogue atoms in the universe, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes that God is utterly immutable, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes that God is impassible because he is immutable, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes that God is simple, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes that man is totally depraved, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes in unconditional election, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes Jesus died only for the sins of the elect and not for the sins of the entire population of the world, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes in the doctrine of regeneration and irresistible grace, as do the Calvinists.

Jim believes all those who will be saved were predestined to be saved and that therefore none will or even can be lost, as do the Calvinists.

Jim puts his own little wacky twist to all of this but so does practically every other Calvinist in the world. According to Jim there has never been a Calvinist since Calvin because according to his logic, if there is anything that Calvin taught that you disagree with at all then that removes you from under the Calvinist umbrella. Jim is undoubtedly a Calvinist and his insistence to the contrary is only so much more proof that he is insane.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It is so true.

Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

One of my favorite passages, Jonah 3:4-10, as an Open View believer in Jesus Christ my Savior, shows us what our God is really like. He is not like the determinists attempt to make Him in this passage as well as others.

Jonah 3:4-10 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” 5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. 6 Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

God changed His mind. That is our Wonderful God.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[patman]

It doesn't because the clock is unable to act on its own responsiblity as Adam was. Understand that God figuring out what Adam would do before the future existed for Adam; is not the same as God making Adam do what He decided to do when the future arrived.

Rob

Like a clock, the gears turn other gears that twist other gadgets, God could see the entire inter workings of everything in creation. Furthermore you say he knew the future in totality. The clocks ticking is not the cause of Gods making it tick.

if the future is settled, Adam's acting is like clockwork. Just as God planned for him to do. There is no freewill in this theology.

 

[Hilston]

Hi RobE,

Isn't submission an act of free will?

Yes, but not libertarian free will. The carnal mind is unable to submit to God's authority (Ro 8:7). Man must first be regenerated before he can choose to yield to God. That is, God chooses the individual first, and regenerates him, then the individual chooses God.

I asked: Clete sees God planning the men and their resultant actions as the same thing if foreknowledge exists. Why is/isn't He right?

Hilston's response: He is right. The Bible's reference to "foreknowledge" is a figure of speech that describes God's decrees (i.e. His plans regarding men and their actions).​

Let me clarify by re-directing the question. Why is God not responsible for sin if God planned the men and their resultant sinful actions?

Who will hold Him responsible? You? Me? There must exist a greater authority than God if He is to be responsible for anything. The Scriptures affirm that there is no higher authority, and therefore God does whatever He has decreed arbitrarily (according to the basic definition of that word) and with complete freedom.

Let's say my 8-year-old son makes up a story. There's a good guy in his story and there are bad guys. The bad guys in his story do bad things. They commit sins. Should I punish my son for conceiving of a story in which evil men do evil things? Does that mean my son is responsible for the bad things those men do? And, according to the story and the world he has created thereby, who will hold him accountable?

I doubt [that Eckhardt believes God's actions are immutable]. It's often hard to pin the answer to this question down since some of the writings specifically say they are not; and some of them say they are; just as Clete's previous examples.

The examples offered thus far are unambiguous. God is mutable in His actions but not in His essence. I've added those examples to my own list of quotes that demonstrate how Open Theists deliberately misrepresent Calvinism just so they have an easier target to knock down.

Well, I lean towards this being true even though the scriptures explicitly say that God can't lie.

That saddens me, Rob.

Lee and I discussed this on another thread. My current position would say that God can't lie because His immutable essence won't lie; not because He is incapacitated in some way by His structure or function.

You make an error by viewing God's inability to lie as an "incapacity." Unlike man, there is no incongruity between God's ability and His will. They are perfectly and inextricably aligned. God cannot do what is against His own decreed will. He does not have the ability to oppose Himself, unlike man, who does it all the time.

... This position allows me to say that God is all powerful in that He is able to do anything, but isn't willing to do anything.

If you would further consider what I've offered above, I think things will begin to make more sense to you. It isn't a limit upon God to say that He cannot lie. It is the limit upon reality that is governed by God's immutable essence.

This is my exact argument against foreknowledge eliminating free will.

Such acrobatics and hoop-jumping are not necessary if you stick to the scriptures and sound logic.

Another example of this would be Jesus Christ being fully man, which is a position we all hold in common. Was Jesus God able to sin or not? Isn't His refusal of sin the basis of His worthiness?

No, Jesus was not able to sin. His physical body could feel the tug of hunger, but He was not able to give into Satan's temptation, or to do anything but the will of the Father. Joh 5:19,30

Thanks for your questions.

All according to God's decrees, of course.

Trusting in the Rock,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

OK, fair enough.

I have read it over about 10 times now and I just can't see how your take makes any sense.

I wish I could say that reading my post alone should suffice to establish the case. But I'm not that good of a writer; nor is the subject one that can be grasped by a cursory treatment. One can't just read my post and see the eleven years of intense study that has gone into examining every details of the Roman epistle. There's an entire context and purpose behind everything Paul wrote in the epistle, in particular, concerning the Mystery and Israel's relation to its doctrine in the Roman setting. If you would consider the links I posted, it might make more sense.

Why would Paul sum up a discussion about two groups and leave out the main group he has been discussing for the entire chapter?

He doesn't leave them out; nor has the Body of Christ been absent in the context. The "all-without-distinction" cannot refer to Israel, because the Kingdom gospel is all about distinction, particularly, Jewish and Gentile-ish distinctions. But in the Body of Christ, the distinctions (the wall of partition) have been broken down. So when Paul refers to the "all-without-distinction," it is unequivocally the Body of Christ.

And of course the obvious question to follow a statement like that would be...

Does God's "prescriptive will" obey/follow His "decretive will" in every and all cases?

No. In fact, rarely does God's prescriptive will line up with His decretive will. For example, God prescription is that each and every man repent and submit to His law. But God's decree is that most men are unrepentant and reject His law. And all of it is for God's good purposes (i.e. His decretive will).

Thanks for your questions,
AATGD, OC.
TITR,
:j

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

After-all... if all of history is settled (in advance by God) there is no such thing as disobedience.

It’s arguable, but I won’t argue!

The text is clear; there is no ambiguity in what Paul writes.

I agree that the text is clear, only my conclusions might be different about what is clearly said! I did catch John Owen interpreting “all” as not “all without distinction,” by the way: “Thirdly, it is not unusual [!] with the Scripture to call God’s chosen people by the name of the world, as also of all flesh, all nations, all families of the earth, and the like general expressions” (“The Death of Death,” p. 215). So then how is it clear that “all” in Rom. 11:32 means “all without distinction,” except by theological necessity? And even then, awkwardness appears with the other “alls,” all Israel will be saved without distinction, what is the distinction? “From him are all things without distinction,” but surely this must mean all things are from him without exception, too, this cannot be “some things are from God” given Paul’s superlatives here, and again the similar usage of “all things” in Colossians and elsewhere where it certainly means “all there is.”

Disobedience to God's prescriptive will is true disobedience. There's no such thing as "obeying" or "disobeying" God's decretive will. It is inexorable.

Maybe I will argue this point, though, if there are two wills in God, then doesn’t this mean (as Piper it seems does come down to saying) that God’s desires conflict at times with his decrees? So then this must imply that God experiences some measure of frustration, as in unfulfilled desires, and he also must be said to have to compromise, in the sense of having to choose sometimes between several somewhat undesirable alternatives.

Lee: But if love is not perfect, it does not always mean strong, nor need a person who is caring necessarily be righteous, either, nor need love mean perfect truthfulness, and so on.

Clete: This comment makes no sense.

Well, I love imperfectly, and am sometimes not at all strong (8 hours a night, for instance). Why is this senseless?

Clete: The point is that God's power takes a back seat to His love.

Dear sir Clete, you continually misunderstand me. I meant that an essential attribute is one that cannot be dispensed with, and we cannot say strength could be dispensed with in the nature of God, that it is not one of his essential attributes (though there may be other attributes that are more prominent, or more glorious, or more expressive of his goodness).

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Hilston]

Hi Lee,

... So then how is it clear that “all” in Rom. 11:32 means “all without distinction,” except by theological necessity?

If I could explain it all here concisely, I would happily do so. I posted links to the details of the study of Romans 11 precisely because it would be way too much to cover here. If you have specific questions about its content, I will do my best to answer.

And even then, awkwardness appears with the other “alls,” all Israel will be saved without distinction, what is the distinction?

Again, the study links will clear all this up for you.

Maybe I will argue this point, though, if there are two wills in God, then doesn’t this mean (as Piper it seems does come down to saying) that God’s desires conflict at times with his decrees?

God expresses a decretive desire (i.e. His exhaustive plan for all of history) as well as a prescriptive desire, albeit in a figurative sense. God's prescriptions are reflections of His righteous character, as applied to specific dispensational laws. What God desires decretively according to His immutable plan and what God commands are often, usually, in opposition, and all according to His good purposes.

... So then this must imply that God experiences some measure of frustration, as in unfulfilled desires, and he also must be said to have to compromise, in the sense of having to choose between several somewhat undesirable alternatives.

Not at all. God's decretive desires are always inexorably fulfilled. God's prescriptions are usually not fulfilled, and all according to God's decrees (desires) for His own good purposes.

Thanks for your post.

TITR,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

God changed His mind. That is our Wonderful God.

No, that's an idiot.

 

[Yorzhik]

Let's say my 8-year-old son makes up a story. There's a good guy in his story and there are bad guys. The bad guys in his story do bad things. They commit sins. Should I punish my son for conceiving of a story in which evil men do evil things? Does that mean my son is responsible for the bad things those men do? And, according to the story and the world he has created thereby, who will hold him accountable?

Yes, within the context of the story itself, your son is responsible. Obviously, right?

But lets take the context outside of the story, and within your world. Your son programs a robot to break a window in your house. Should he be punished now?

 

[Clete]

No, that's an idiot.

So now, according to Jim, God is the idiotic author of sin! :nono:

 

[Clete]

Hi RobE,

Yes, but not libertarian free will.

There is no telling what Jim means by this distinction. How many posts ago was it that he accused the open view of redefining the terms of the Christian faith? :think:

We either have a will or we don't. The will is either free or it isn't a will at all. If we do not make the choice between doing, and doing otherwise then we do not have a will at all.

The carnal mind is unable to submit to God's authority (Ro 8:7). Man must first be regenerated before he can choose to yield to God. That is, God chooses the individual first, and regenerates him, then the individual chooses God.

But is unable to choose otherwise. There is no will in play here (aside from God's), only action.

Who will hold Him responsible? You? Me? There must exist a greater authority than God if He is to be responsible for anything.

Being held responsible and being responsible are two different things. Jim wants desperately for them to be the same but they are not.

The Scriptures affirm that there is no higher authority, and therefore God does whatever He has decreed arbitrarily (according to the basic definition of that word) and with complete freedom.

Such a god cannot be just (according to the basic definition of that word). God does not act arbitrarily but in a manner consistent with His righteous and holy nature.

Let's say my 8-year-old son makes up a story. There's a good guy in his story and there are bad guys. The bad guys in his story do bad things. They commit sins. Should I punish my son for conceiving of a story in which evil men do evil things? Does that mean my son is responsible for the bad things those men do? And, according to the story and the world he has created thereby, who will hold him accountable?

Of course Jim's son, as the author, would be directly responsible for the content of any fiction he rights and whether anyone held him accountable for it or not.

The examples offered thus far are unambiguous. God is mutable in His actions but not in His essence. I've added those examples to my own list of quotes that demonstrate how Open Theists deliberately misrepresent Calvinism just so they have an easier target to knock down.

Notice at this point that Jim is back to simply pretending that his case hasn't been blown wide open by the fact that Calvinists routinely play the antinomy trump card anytime the irrationality of immutability is presented against their theology. Jim might deny the existence of contradictions within the doctrines of Calvinism and insist that we are making it up in order to knock down straw dummies but the Calvinists not only don't deny it, they proclaim it proudly and count their willingness to accept antinomy as a mark of piousness and faith.

That saddens me, Rob.

Don't let him fool you Rob! He'll lose not a wink of sleep over your ability to think clearly enough to see past his misuse of Scripture.

You make an error by viewing God's inability to lie as an "incapacity." Unlike man, there is no incongruity between God's ability and His will. They are perfectly and inextricably aligned. God cannot do what is against His own decreed will. He does not have the ability to oppose Himself, unlike man, who does it all the time.

Where oh where did I put my little god box again? I can't seem to find it!

Someone please ask Jim to return my small little itty bitty god box right away!

If you would further consider what I've offered above, I think things will begin to make more sense to you. It isn't a limit upon God to say that He cannot lie. It is the limit upon reality that is governed by God's immutable essence.

This is unbelievable. When we define the limitations of God within reality we get called humanists and existentialists. When Jim does it, well, it's not really limiting God at all.

What a complete hypocritical buffoon this dork is.

Such acrobatics and hoop-jumping are not necessary if you stick to the scriptures and sound logic.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Am I going mad or did the words "sound logic" escape your lips?!

No, Jesus was not able to sin. His physical body could feel the tug of hunger, but He was not able to give into Satan's temptation, or to do anything but the will of the Father. Joh 5:19,30

Jesus was tempted, in all ways as we are. Jesus wasn't simply hungry, He was tempted to obey Satan and turn those stones into loafs of bread. If this were not so, whole sections of Scripture would be rendered completely meaningless. If you stick to the Scriptures and sound logic, you can't miss it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Yes, but not libertarian free will. The carnal mind is unable to submit to God's authority (Ro 8:7). Man must first be regenerated before he can choose to yield to God. That is, God chooses the individual first, and regenerates him, then the individual chooses God.

Grace.

Rob: Why is God not responsible for sin if God planned the men and their resultant sinful actions?

Hilston: Who will hold Him responsible? You? Me? There must exist a greater authority than God if He is to be responsible for anything. The Scriptures affirm that there is no higher authority, and therefore God does whatever He has decreed arbitrarily (according to the basic definition of that word) and with complete freedom.

I'm not sure this answers the question. God does what He desires. Part of righteousness is being responsible for your own actions though. Jesus Christ was the response.

You make an error by viewing God's inability to lie as an "incapacity." Unlike man, there is no incongruity between God's ability and His will. They are perfectly and inextricably aligned. God cannot do what is against His own decreed will. He does not have the ability to oppose Himself, unlike man, who does it all the time.

If you would further consider what I've offered above, I think things will begin to make more sense to you. It isn't a limit upon God to say that He cannot lie. It is the limit upon reality that is governed by God's immutable essence.

How is my position contrary to yours? I'm saying that God's will makes Him unable to lie just as Clete's will makes Him unable to do other(wise) than what God has foreseen. In both cases the will is free to do as it pleases and in both cases the performer is capable of doing otherwise in structure(disregarding the will). Thus foreknowledge exists without destroying free will even though the actor is incapable of doing otherwise!

God's immutable essence makes Him unable to lie just as Clete's essence will not allow Him to do otherwise without the intervention of an outside force such as Grace. Therefore this is true......

Man must first be regenerated before he can choose to yield to God. That is, God chooses the individual first, and regenerates him, then the individual chooses God.​

.....because doing otherwise would be against the free agents will.
And, the following is false based upon the fact that doing otherwise requires coercion.....

Premise 1a: Free will is defined as having the ability to do or do otherwise purely by an act of that will.​

(also, I should note that the definition of ability here points towards function(willingness) and not structure(capacity)).

And, the following is true in a strict sense, but false in its definition of ability since the definition of ability here refers towards capacity.........

Premise 2a: If a future action is known by whatever means then there is no ability to do other than what is known or else it could not be said to have been known.​

Clete misses the point that willingness makes a free will agent unable to ever do other than what their own essence decrees despite the structural ability which still exists in reality. Therefore, at judgement a man is unable to honestly proclaim any inability to do other than what he actually did; and, the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the actor in every situation because His will(essence) did exactly as it desired even though he was structurally capable of doing otherwise.

No, Jesus was not able to sin. His physical body could feel the tug of hunger, but He was not able to give into Satan's temptation, or to do anything but the will of the Father. Joh 5:19,30

Jesus' will was to do the will of the Father which is what made Him worthy. Jesus was unable to sin or give into temptation because of unwillingness, not because He wasn't fully man.

Lee spoke to me about the Greek word used in the scripture where it says that God can't lie; and after I looked into it, I agree that the Greek word means incapable. What I had to ask myself is "Why was God incapable if He is in reality able to do anything which is possible?".

Molinastically,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Like a clock, the gears turn other gears that twist other gadgets, God could see the entire inter workings of everything in creation. Furthermore you say he knew the future in totality. The clocks ticking is not the cause of Gods making it tick.

if the future is settled, Adam's acting is like clockwork. Just as God planned for him to do. There is no freewill in this theology.

There is when we realize that God's knowledge that the clock would tick, God creating the clock for a good purpose, and God continuing to allow the clock to tick; does NOT make God responsible for how it ticks and whether or not if functions correctly if the clock has free will.

Your Friend,
Rob