ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The accusation here is that the OV claims God is responsible if He knows evil will occur in the world tommorrow and decides to allow it. The accusation here is that the OV claims God is responsible if He knew, before the creative act, that evil would occur and decided to allow it.

That God knows your choices in no way removes the fact that you made or will make the choices. You are responsible for your own choices, and God is right to hold you in account for them.

Let me be clear—I don't deny that all our actions have been ordained by God. To deny this is to deny significant portions of the Scriptures, not the least of which are "the preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:1), "It is God which works in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). Moreover I do not deny that God is the ultimate cause of everything, including sin. That there is no doubt that God decrees and causes sin is found in the Scriptures. For example, in 2 Chronicles 18:20-22 we find a clear statements that God caused the prophets to lie.

When Adam and Eve sinned, God knew they would sin. Even knowing this, God created them out of the pleasure of His own perfect will. God chose to allow them to sin. In fact, God ordained that they would sin, for without God's ordination, Adam and Eve could not have sinned. But, and this is important, none of this means that God is responsible for their sin even if He orchestrated all the events around them such that they would sin.

KEY POINT: God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though God is the only ultimate cause of everything.

Sin may be defined as lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state. See (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 6:12-17; Romans 7:5-24).

Sin is a moral evil. God cannot be morally evil or even choose to consider the option of being morally evil. Sin involves acts, dispositions, states of mind that are not conformed to moral law. God is that moral lawgiver. God's actions, dispositions, and state of mind is always holy and perfect. God could not choose to be double-minded, nor entertain the possibility of so choosing.

Furthermore, if God could choose to sin, what exactly would He be sinning against? God is the ultimate moral standard for what is considered sin. Does God answer to another moral authority? Could God make a new law (from our perspective), obviating the previous one? Yes. Then the previous law instantaneously no longer exists, since when God speaks, it happens. Again, the question remains, what would God's sin be against? God cannot sin nor even entertain the choice to not sin.

God is not sinful because whatever a holy God does is just and right. Whatever God does is just and right simply by virtue of the fact that God does it. Justice and righteousness are not standards external to God to which God is obliged to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Adam and Eve to sin, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition, a holy God cannot sin. God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids God to ordain sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God. But, God is a law unto Himself. The laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature. They are only applicable to human conditions. For example, God cannot steal, not only because whatever God does is right, but also because God owns everything. There is no one to steal from.

As from the above, God cannot sin. We turn now to the assertion that God is not responsible for sin, despite the fact that He decrees it. The laws God imposes on man carry with them penalties that cannot be inflicted upon God. Man is responsible because God calls man to account. Man is responsible because God can punish him for disobedience. But, God cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power above Him that can hold Him accountable. There is no one to punish God, no one to whom God is responsible. There are no laws which God could disobey. Thus, God cannot be responsible for sin.

In summary, the sinner, and not God, is responsible.

The kind of free will that man seeks to claim is an illusion, for they cannot be free of God's sovereignty.

 

[godrulz]

Sounds double-speak to me. Compatibilism and Molinism are off my list of possible solutions to theological issues.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sounds double-speak to me. Compatibilism and Molinism are off my list of possible solutions to theological issues.

Don't make compile "your list" of what is not a possible solution to your theology. For when such list is compiled it will obvious to even the most casual observed that there is only one possible solution left for your theology -- yourself -- your own works and efforts. Your birthday was yesterday and you received a well-deserved one day dispensation. No more until next year. :squint:

 

[Lon]

Jesus is speaking specifically about the Kingdom of Heaven, and describing it to the Jews. He's not speaking about why God allows evil in the world.

Lay it out. I'll just listen for a spell. What is your take on the wheat/tares?

Be as precise with the analogous as possible here, please.

 

[Lon]

Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites

So that must have been a certainty also eh Lee????? Lee we have been down all these roads before. You lose, game over, your theology is a bankrupt mess.

Dump everything that you think you know and start over.

And this time.... start with God's word as your guide not some dead theologian.

Okay, let's BOTH dump everything for a moment and start again as you say.

First off, where is the first promise given in this circumstance?

Deu 11:22 For if you carefully observe all of these commandments I am giving you and love the LORD your God, live according to his standards, and remain loyal to him,
Deu 11:23 then he will drive out all these nations ahead of you, and you will dispossess nations greater and stronger than you.
Deu 11:24 Every place you set your foot will be yours; your border will extend from the desert to Lebanon and from the River (that is, the Euphrates) as far as the Mediterranean Sea.
Deu 11:25 Nobody will be able to resist you; the LORD your God will spread the fear and terror of you over the whole land on which you walk, just as he promised you.

Question: Conditional or unconditional here?

Q2: If conditional, what is the condition?
If unconditional, specify it from this passage, please.
(use Joshua 7:11-12 for help answering this question)

Joshua 3:10 now.

Is it really saying what you assert here? Is the promise conditional or unconditional? What was your answer.

To further help, let's look at the context.

What does Joshua 1:7 specifically say about the promise?

Is there truly any doubt in your mind here? Truly?

 

[Lon]

God knows before we choose. Whether it be moments before or a longer time before.

The OV doesn't posit that knowing a decision causes the event. But this is what the OV says; if a chain of events is started by someone, and that person knows in exhaustive detail every event in the chain, then the events are caused by the person that started the chain of events. Therefore, if you want to say that God knows every future event in exhaustive detail, and God created the initial events, then God caused all events. The events are not caused because God knows them, the events are caused because God caused creation. Can you please admit now that the OV does not say that events are caused because they are known?

Secondly, have you seen RobE's claim that God doesn't know what He's doing? How do you explain that?

Read AMR's post here on compatiblism (top of this page). It explains the classic and most widely held position on the matter. Compatible simply means the ideas aren't opposed to one another. God knows and we are still responsible.


I tried to see your objection with Rob on the second point. I'm either not seeing it from him or not comprehending it from you. I haven't seen Rob make a statement that God doesn't know what He is doing. He supports and adheres to EDF. EDF puts God in knowing everything so I'm not seeing what statement he made that has you understanding (or misunderstanding?) this way.

Is he rather arguing that with OV, God couldn't be capable as does Lee?

I'd think that is what you are seeing as both have asserted that God isn't even omnicompetent in the OV conclusions if taken to logical ends.

I'd think this is where the confusion may lie if it wasn't made clear he was addressing the OV position. I don't know, that's my best guess.

In Him

 

[Lon]

Time to really 'shine'

Time to really 'shine'

Sounds double-speak to me. Compatibilism and Molinism are off my list of possible solutions to theological issues.

Give it a better ear than a casual gloss-over this time, please.

This is one of the crux issues between us and deserves a few pages of dialogue discussing points, confusions, objections, etc.

This is the majority position so it needs more than just a simple statement like: double-speak, illogical, or Greek-influence.

I'll try and model what I mean and am looking for:

That God knows your choices in no way removes the fact that you made or will make the choices. You are responsible for your own choices, and God is right to hold you in account for them.

Does he prove his point? This is the important assertation that divides OV from the rest. It is one of the important issues as it is the difference between a true compatible view (compatible meaning the ideas aren't opposed to one another but congruent) and one that is asserted illogical or in your words "double-spoken."
Let's see if he delivers:

Let me be clear—I don't deny that all our actions have been ordained by God. To deny this is to deny significant portions of the Scriptures, not the least of which are "the preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:1), "It is God which works in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). Moreover I do not deny that God is the ultimate cause of everything, including sin. That there is no doubt that God decrees and causes sin is found in the Scriptures. For example, in 2 Chronicles 18:20-22 we find a clear statements that God caused the prophets to lie.

This is good. He is asserting here "The God of Calvinism is..." line of reasoning. He is owning the accusation. He isn't shying away from it, but hitting it head on. In order, now, for him to redeem, he must be able to eliminate the next OV logical conclusion that God is the author of sin. Let's see how it progresses. At this point we have God as the author of sin and lies (which He hates and abhors as I agree with OV here). How is AMR going to dig himself out of this mess?
I'm chewing fingernails.

When Adam and Eve sinned, God knew they would sin. Even knowing this, God created them out of the pleasure of His own perfect will. God chose to allow them to sin. In fact, God ordained that they would sin, for without God's ordination, Adam and Eve could not have sinned. But, and this is important, none of this means that God is responsible for their sin even if He orchestrated all the events around them such that they would sin.

Woah!!! This seems to be saying God orchestrated sin!?! If I am OV, I can stop reading here and take OV theology for the win. What a concession! Those befuddled Calvinists! Don't they see their own grave? NO WAY is AMR going to pull himself out of this 6X2' pine box! My fingers are nubs. What is my brother doing to himself? AND TO ME???

KEY POINT:

God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though God is the only ultimate cause of everything.

Okay, I agree with this, but haven't you just given OV every tool and ammunition to derail us? I mean, we are talking EDF here. According to us, this is the logical ramification of EDF for the majority of us, but aren't you digging us in? Doesn't OV just need to come behind us with a back hoe now? What have you done? I usually trust you on these things. You always seem to have a well tended theological garden at the end of these. Forgive my doubts. I'm seeing all the OV accusations like in a relived nightmare, fingers all pointing. Some laughing. Some disgusted. Some taking notes on how to use the backhoe all so sufficiently for next time. Am I worried? "Naw!"
(Okay a little)

Sin may be defined as lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state. See (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 6:12-17; Romans 7:5-24).

Sin is a moral evil. God cannot be morally evil or even choose to consider the option of being morally evil. Sin involves acts, dispositions, states of mind that are not conformed to moral law. God is that moral lawgiver. God's actions, dispositions, and state of mind is always holy and perfect. God could not choose to be double-minded, nor entertain the possibility of so choosing.

Well, so much for your "double-speak" accusation GodRulz. Even if you choose to play that card, AMR has adequately refuted it before you even responded (which is why I am addressing your post). AMR has effectively proven that it cannot happen with God. What you can do, is tackle his reasoning at this point, but you cannot attribute evil to God in the Calvinist position after this point. AMR's statements make it very clear that God cannot be evil and it is dishonest, mindless, sophmoronic, etc. to ever try. Let's see how AMR's reasoning for holes, but we can never attribute evil to God after this proof statement section of his treatise. We can never attribute evil to God in viewing a Calvinist position. We can attack their position at this point, but not their (my) understanding of God.

Furthermore, if God could choose to sin, what exactly would He be sinning against? God is the ultimate moral standard for what is considered sin. Does God answer to another moral authority? Could God make a new law (from our perspective), obviating the previous one? Yes. Then the previous law instantaneously no longer exists, since when God speaks, it happens. Again, the question remains, what would God's sin be against? God cannot sin nor even entertain the choice to not sin.

God is not sinful because whatever a holy God does is just and right. Whatever God does is just and right simply by virtue of the fact that God does it. Justice and righteousness are not standards external to God to which God is obliged to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Adam and Eve to sin, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition, a holy God cannot sin. God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids God to ordain sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God. But, God is a law unto Himself. The laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature. They are only applicable to human conditions. For example, God cannot steal, not only because whatever God does is right, but also because God owns everything. There is no one to steal from.

AMR effectively deals with the issue. Does he deal with the Calvinist compatible view?

As from the above, God cannot sin. We turn now to the assertion that God is not responsible for sin, despite the fact that He decrees it. The laws God imposes on man carry with them penalties that cannot be inflicted upon God. Man is responsible because God calls man to account. Man is responsible because God can punish him for disobedience. But, God cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power above Him that can hold Him accountable. There is no one to punish God, no one to whom God is responsible. There are no laws which God could disobey. Thus, God cannot be responsible for sin.

In summary, the sinner, and not God, is responsible.

The kind of free will that man seeks to claim is an illusion, for they cannot be free of God's sovereignty.

He sums it up well, but you should have a bunch of questions at this point about his ascertation. We know part of the answer lies in the discussion of freewill, and part of it lies in the compatiblist's stance on scriptural doctrine including EDF.

Foreknowledge and Foreordination are terms that I caution before engaging as often misconstrued and not rightly separated in arguments against them.

Foreordination, AMR here uses the term 'orchestration.' Similar terms: allows, let's progress, etc. OV has to embrace this theological truth as do we all. God allows evil as it is happening. At any time He can swoop in and save the victim, stop the criminal, and save the day. We both recognize God ordains as difficult as it is for us to grasp. There are many many reasons why ordination 'must' happen and God remains holy, loving, righteous, true, and perfect. He is untainted in both of our estimations. This ISN'T the argument between OV and any other theological stance. We all answer ordination very similarly and with the same perplexity.

Foreknowledge is about what God knows and when He knows it. It has 'some' to do with ordination, but as Yorzik continues to misconstrue, he is tackling ordination, not foreknowledge persay. The compatibilist view is that God 'ordains' (whether foreknown or otherwise). OVer's ARE compatiblists as well. The problem (of understanding) with Calvinism is your problem as well. There is no OV magic wand that makes the problem go away. This is why I believe we can work together for a few pages discussing the problem of sin/evil and come to some agreeable conclusions.

(Nice treatise AMR, it should have opened a lot of discussion rather than GR's quick once-over)

GR, please address OV (or any theological stance) and the problem of evil with a Holy/Loving God.

 

[godrulz]

Don't make compile "your list" of what is not a possible solution to your theology. For when such list is compiled it will obvious to even the most casual observed that there is only one possible solution left for your theology -- yourself -- your own works and efforts. Your birthday was yesterday and you received a well-deserved one day dispensation. No more until next year. :squint:

Do you think all Open Theists/Arminians are guilty of own works and efforts because they reject TULIP or is it just me (if so, you have sozoitis and straw manitis)?

Did you catch my concerns about Boettner and Sproul equating non-Calvinism with atheism?

Since when is compatibilism the majority position? I would not assume Calvinism is the dominant evangelical view in light of the number of Wesleyan, Arminian, Pentecostal, various Baptist, etc. groups out there.

 

[Lon]

Do you think all Open Theists/Arminians are guilty of own works and efforts because they reject TULIP or is it just me (if so, you have sozoitis and straw manitis)?

Did you catch my concerns about Boettner and Sproul equating non-Calvinism with atheism?

Since when is compatibilism the majority position? I would not assume Calvinism is the dominant evangelical view in light of the number of Wesleyan, Arminian, Pentecostal, various Baptist, etc. groups out there.

You missed the part where I said 'ordination' forces everyone to a compatiblist view?

Let me try it this way and see if you do not agree:

I'm going to go first and Google today's news. I'll be right back (8:16 PM)...

...back (8:17) "Three years ago, a Colombian airliner crashed in the same remote Andean mountain state of Merida, near the Colombian border, after both engines failed, killing all 160 people on board." Rest of the story.

Alright (8:18 PST, PM), was God aware that this flight was going down? Did He know it a long time ago? Did He know about engine problems today? The most important question of course is besides all of this. Who really cares about 'when' the real question isn't about when or how, but why and what. Why didn't God just switch circumstances around so the plane never left the ground? Why didn't He just put an idea in the pilot's head to fly around if it was a weather thing? Did God want this to happen?

You see, the discussion between us is the same after the the unimportant ones are taken care of where we differ (when, how). The difficult questions remain.

You and I both understand that it is NOT God's ultimate desire when He cares about sparrows falling. This has us working on the theological ramifications. I'm still waiting on Muz for his wheat/tares break-down, but I really don't have a problem with him like he seems to be having with me. The answer will be acceptable to both of us whether he agrees with my assessment on the analogy or not. My contention is that it explains that God is concerned over every wheat and removing or interfering will have some detrimental effect undesirable. I do not assume to answer for God here, but I have complete trust in Him that He is good, loving, righteous, holy, and that His plan is effective. In the big picture of things, death isn't the most important thing, salvation is. If the righteous suffer, it is only for a little while Peter and Paul tell us. Suffering, while undesirable and downright tragic and disturbing, still isn't what this is all about. What it is ALL about is relationship with the Savior. In that scope of things, it is the only thing that has any bearing on desirable outcome.

Now, please tell me. What do you agree with? What page are we on together? What is different? Isn't my view 'compatible' with evil in existence and a righteous and Holy God? Isn't your's?

 

[lee_merrill]

Who really cares about 'when' the real question isn't about when or how, but why and what. Why didn't God just switch circumstances around so the plane never left the ground? Why didn't He just put an idea in the pilot's head to fly around if it was a weather thing? Did God want this to happen?

You see, the discussion between us is the same after the the unimportant ones are taken care of where we differ (when, how). The difficult questions remain.

Quite.

You and I both understand that it is NOT God's ultimate desire when He cares about sparrows falling. This has us working on the theological ramifications.

This is all well stated...

 

[godrulz]

Lon: Quick reading, not too much to quibble about.

 

[Lon]

Lon: Quick reading, not too much to quibble about.

I'm kinda in shock. You said AMR was double-speaking with a compatiblist view, remember?

By all means, please quibble. I'd hate to think one post cleared it all up and OV no longer has any real problems with traditional views (not really, but you know what I'm saying here).

If not, I'll leave it up to you and AMR to wrap this all up nicely.

Blessings,

Lon

 

[godrulz]

My quibble is compatibilism denying libertarian free will (is there another kind...redundant, but necessary due to opposition). Choosing (did I spell it right, AMR...see, I can learn) based on dictated desires from God is hocus pocus to retain hyper-sovereignty. Why the aversion to genuine freedom if it is from God and part of the image of God? It is not dethroning God nor deifying man.

 

[Yorzhik]

But that is what I meant, it makes no sense to say "God will not change his mind in this instance" if God might change his mind in this instance. Which is what you seemed to be saying.

No, it would only make no sense if God intended to change His mind in that instance. But if God did not expect to change His mind in that instance, it is okay for Him to say He wasn't going to change His mind.

This is just another example of the Settled View not being able to read the plain meaning of the text because their worldview forces them to change what God wrote.

Not at all, God might allow decisions to be made within his will. I believe he does!

If your children were fully obedient, your will with them would never be thwarted, and yet you would allow them various choices.

Of course. If you get married, it is God's will that you get married. And God allows you to make the decision of who you will marry. So we could say that God allows decisions to be made within His will.

But this says nothing about our ability to thwart God's will. Are you saying that all people are fully obedient?

Right, and so is saying "I will put my hands a certain way" when God says you won't. Can God not bring such a simple effect about?

Not if God allows us to have will.

If God says we will have our hands a certain way, and we will to have our hands the opposite of whatever God says, then to have our hands the way God says will require God to cause the event or to remove our will. It would be simple for God to do so, but then again, it would be simple for God to bow down to Satan.

Your God is rather small.

Yet, my God allows us to have a will and to love God or hate Him, while your God calls Himself big only because He pushes everyone around.

It's the same as God defeating the Jebusites "without fail". If God expects something to happen, with finality, then He will use language in line with what He expects.

As here...

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

A remnant will indeed be saved. But how could this be known? But this is God's sentence on earth, that a remnant will indeed be saved, and only a remnant.

It's not "As here..." you idiot; God did not drive out the Jebusites "without fail".

... we have a number of cases where prophecy did not turn out as expected directly, and indirectly God did not get what he expected in general.

I address such here.

Here's a quote from lee's address: "Thus God's actions with Saul were in accordance with this description, his plan was unchanged, though his response to Saul had changed."

No, you idiot, God's plan changed because originally God expected Saul to obey Him. And, that God "would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time". That was the reason His response changed. Can you give us another reason for God to change His response?

This discussion is having such long intervals between posts! I no longer remember what the stated contradiction was, specifically.

That if all events are exhaustively foreknown, then those events cannot change. An event that is exhaustively known cannot change or you have a logical contradiction.

Yet this prediction was in response to Peter saying "you know all things." Implying clearly that Jesus is confirming Peter's statement with another sure (truly, truly) prediction. Of what he will freely choose.

"truly truly" or "without fail" - it's the same.

No, I'm arguing that "live" and "die" here have two senses, within the passage--in context, these words have dual meanings.

Another twisting of God's word. Lee, you don't realize that "overthrowing someone with repentance" and making "live" and "die" mean either "live or die" makes a mockery of God.

I'll bet when someone says "God" as an expletive you get angry about it. You don't realize that your interpretation of God's word in places like this is a worse example of taking God's name in vain than those expletives.

If Hezekiah had gone on his way unchanged and unaffected and quite lively.

If Hezekiah had gone his way alive, it would be impossible to go away unchanged or unaffected. You're an idiot. If you get a chance to talk with the Word on judgment day, He's going to bring this up and you aren't going to like it.

You never did tell us how you measured the amount of certainty I had the Pats would go undefeated.

I'm not sure what you mean here, though.

Blessings, on you and on the not-so-undefeated Pats,
Lee

I said I was certain the Pats were going to go undefeated, and you said I was lying. So I'd like to know how you measured my certainty.

And, by the way, the Pats went undefeated this season.

 

[Lon]

My quibble is compatibilism denying libertarian free will (is there another kind...redundant, but necessary due to opposition). Choosing (did I spell it right, AMR...see, I can learn) based on dictated desires from God is hocus pocus to retain hyper-sovereignty. Why the aversion to genuine freedom if it is from God and part of the image of God? It is not dethroning God nor deifying man.

Those are important questions in our continuing discussion.

If you don't have time, skip to the last two paragraphs as it tries to put a handle on our stances on the issue of freewill and where we are today.

In one sense, EDF comes into play but we are still talking about ordination for the most part. EDF forces us to re-examine free-will and see it's many limitations.
It isn't that we aren't independently culpable for sin, but that what 'freedom' we are experiencing isn't really freedom at all. Adam and Eve were 'free' in one sense to sin, but not in another and in examining that, I believe we find many answers to the classic discussion, if not wholly agreeing.

Adam and Eve were not 'free' to eat of the tree in the sense that 1) they were created 'not' to, and 2) they were forbidden. In a similar sense, my kids are not 'free' to hit one another. There are binding consequences for both obedience and disobedience. Disobedience doesn't 'free' it changes chains. I said in a sense we are 'free' and in another sense we are not.

I could be let loose from a jail only to be bound in stocks. In one sense I can say "I'm free from jail." This is true, but I'm still not 'free.'

We have an innate sense upon the 'freedom' in freewill discussions but it is usually the focus of 'free' and then concurrently 'will' that has us disagreeing. Two words combined, but it is the definition and understanding that is in disagreement. Several have said that 'free' and will is redundant and 'libertarian' is triplet.

Will is desire to do a thing. We recognize we choose according to desire and that there is a certain amount of freedom in that choice. Where we begin to digress is on, taste, availability, and the ramifications of that freedom.

As beings created in His image, we have been given an ability to choose and this included disobedience. The presence of disobedience is offered to man, not as part of the design, but as part of the forbiddence. Man is given a choice 'to do otherwise.' It isn't a gift if he actually chooses it, it is a curse. He is given responsibilty for his morality. This is the 'freewill' element we are most often talking about. It is great as long as man 'doesn't' choose it. "Do not eat from this tree."

It is great, because man is truly free. He doesn't have to sin and die. He can do everything else as part of the program. He can basically do anything he likes. He could whomp Eve on the head? I don't think he could. It isn't that he wasn't 'free' to. It is that it wasn't in his nature to do so.
He wasn't going to do anything that God didn't design him to do. He had hands, so he can build an airplane. He isn't forbidden to do that. He literally can do anything he desires, but eat of that tree. Nobody was ever as free. This guy had it all, there was NO limit to what he could do save disobey. That one act was to go against God. Nothing else is forbidden to Him.

Contrast that with our laws, Hebrew laws, etc. We are enslaved. Sin opened up all the wrong things. Every one of them enslaving. Everyone of them not what Adam or Eve would have done. They weren't forbidden to eat pork. They weren't forbidden to whack another on the head. It wasn't necessary. There was no inclination. There was no need to say 'no.'

Freewill is only accurately described with Adam and Eve. They are the only beings that ever had it until Christ. For the rest of us, it is illusion. I 'can' choose between rocki road, and pistachio as a morally liberated choice still. Some of our freedom is morally in tact, but it still becomes a moral issue if I should be thinking about giving to the poor or church, or other needy. Did God make me liking nut flavored ice cream and you chocolate? I 'feel' free in my choice because it is the way my tastebuds are made. I don't bemoan that I do not like chocolate, am crazy, and that God made me this way. I'm free to not have to eat chocolate if I don't want to. It is very 'freeing' to go with the way I was made. If I'm sitting at a table and God says 'your palms will be flat down on the table' I agree with Him, gladly and in freedom. Freedom is knowing the will of God and following in that will. Eating chocolate is absurd to me. I do not feel at all 'constrained' that my tastebuds are not chocolate oriented. I do not feel slighted or enslaved, nor envious of chocolate lovers. Design and EDF do not mean that I sense a loss of freedom or self-will. I'm not at all threatened if God has determined every choice for me. He loves me. He knows what is best for me. His every intention for me is GREAT. I couldn't be happier.

What brings us to Christ? Moral dilemma? Relationship with God? Fear of Hell?
An innate knowledge of need of a Savior? Guilt over sin? I think all of these play a role in some measure, but it isn't 'free will' that I can discern. We aren't free, but in bondage to sin. In order to be Christ's we have to have sin's hold erradicated. Do we choose what kind of fruit we are? Can the unbeliever stop unbelieving if he so chose? I'm not certain he can. If Christ doesn't break through his barrier, busting through his sin-bound will, I don't believe he has any choice in the matter. He cannot break those bonds. I see Sovereignty in "You did not choose me, but I chose you before the foundation of the world."

 

[Ktoyou]

We know that perception of tangible things differs with individuals. Consider that ‘free will’ is an abstract concept. What if ‘free will’ is an illusion and what maters is how we react to that illusion, as to how God offers us Grace?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Your birthday was yesterday and you received a well-deserved one day dispensation. No more until next year. :squint:

Have you considered dispensationalism, AMR? :chuckle:

 

[RobE]

My quibble is compatibilism denying libertarian free will (is there another kind...redundant, but necessary due to opposition). Choosing (did I spell it right, AMR...see, I can learn) based on dictated desires from God is hocus pocus to retain hyper-sovereignty. Why the aversion to genuine freedom if it is from God and part of the image of God? It is not dethroning God nor deifying man.

What proofs have you that compatibalism denies free will?

Did Judas Iscariot choose to betray freely, even while Christ knew he would do it?
Did Judas Iscariot remain unrepentent freely, even while Christ knew he would do so?

As to your second point: You are only able to choose freely if God desires(allows) you to choose freely. In other words, God made you and gave you the ability to choose freely. Without His desire that you exist; you wouldn't. Without His desire to allow you to choose; you wouldn't be able to choose.

Sounds double-speak to me. Compatibilism and Molinism are off my list of possible solutions to theological issues.

No one is speaking of Molinism, Calvinism, or any other denomination here other than Christianity. Arminians are compatibalists. Catholics are compatibalists. Lutherans are compatibalists. Most Calvinists are compatibalists.

Only Supralapsarians and open theists deny the compatibility between foreknowledge and free will. Your stated 'enemy' is the only group which holds your view of incompatibility.

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee continues to blow his little trumpet--and wonders how God can know that only a remnant will be saved, yet there will be a remnant, and then later "all Israel will be saved."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

And a very little trumpet it is, as your question has already been answered.

Muz