ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[God_Is_Truth]

You don't know that. You cannot stand there for 5 minutes contemplating a decision and then have that decision be completely uninfluenced by prior deliberation.

what effect could coming to no conclusion have?

Then will you admit the human perception of freedom does not determine its reality?

if it's not there, where is it? the definition? you're not suggesting that we can't trust our senses or perception of reality are you?

Limited, influenced, driven, drawn.

by your definition, i would say that nothing is totally free.

You previously wrote: "because if something else determines that i will choose something, then i am not the determining factor and thus am not the one really making the choice. i am merely acting out what has been chosen for me."

By saying that, you deny your own responsibility for choices you make, even though they were predetermined.

i wrote that IF something else determined my choice, i'm not the deciding factor. would it be right to hold a person accountable for a choice they did not make? that's all i'm arguing here....

Both. There is nothing that happens that isn't predetermined.

how do you define predetermined and what does that mean to you?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
what effect could coming to no conclusion have?

You can tell yourself, "I can't come to a conclusion," but then you make a decision anyway. It's self-delusional to think that your deliberation was completely inconsequential to your decision.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
if it's not there, where is it? the definition? you're not suggesting that we can't trust our senses or perception of reality are you?

Yes, I am. Without the grounding of our experiences and perception upon the testimony of special revelation, we have no certainty about reality.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
by your definition, i would say that nothing is totally free.

That is my view.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
i wrote that IF something else determined my choice, i'm not the deciding factor.

Sure you are. You make the decision. It's your choice. If genetics have predetermined for you an intolerance of lactose-based food products, you still have a choice whether or not to drink a glass of milk.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
would it be right to hold a person accountable for a choice they did not make? that's all i'm arguing here ...

No. But I'm not talking about people who do not make their own choices. Quite the opposite. People are held accountable for the choices they make, even though those choices are predetermined.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth how do you define predetermined and what does that mean to you?

I define it biblically: pro-orizo; To mark out in advance. It means that God's infinitude extends to all of future, present and past history, all things without exception happening according to his determinate counsel.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

I must've missed it. Prove it or give me a link.

Well I'm more in the habit of arguing against compatibilism on this web site so I don't think we could find any posts for me to link too but I have at least 2 or 3 dozen different articles on the subject (or related subjects) here on my trusty Gateway PC. I'll post here my favorite one. It is relatively short but still does an excellent job of communicating the most commonly held understanding of compatibilism within Christian circles (at least as far as I am aware of anyway).
Note that while the author never uses the word, he very clearly leans on the concept of antimony within his theology.

The following along with many other articles can be found @ PREDESTINATION OR FREE WILL

What is "compatibilism"?​

Compatibilism is the idea that God has absolute control over every event that happens (as an author controls his story), including the actions and choices of man, and yet man can still be held responsible for his actions. In other words, human beings are responsible creatures (who can choose, decide, obey, rebel, and so on) but our responsibility does not limit God's ability to have absolute control. We cannot resist God's decree and plans. What follows is a simple description of compatibilism:

God can have absolute control over men's actions and men can still be held responsible for their actions. These two claims are not logically contradictory, even if they seem so at first glance.

A moment of reflection will reveal this principle at work in the death of Christ. Everything that happened, including Judas's betrayal and Pilate's apathy, which led up to Calvary was not only in God's plan, but was ordained by God to happen the way it did. These events are described with the words of the early church in this way:

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur (Acts 4:27-28, NASB).

They did what God decided should happen. Does that mean they were not held responsible for their actions? Absolutely not! In John 17:12, Jesus refers to Judas as the one "doomed to destruction." This is but one Biblical example (see also Isaiah 10:5-7, Genesis 50:19-20).

If a man performs an evil act or falls away, God "made" him do it because God controls everything. The compatibilism will not explain why the man may be held responsible and punished. He simply asserts, along with the Bible, that the man can be held responsible. For more discussion, see the FAQ about predestination and human responsibility.

Modern compatibilists also present the following philosophical arguments which show that we do not have enough understanding to deny compatibilism. The following approach was taken from a discussion by D. A. Carson.

First, we cannot understand how an eternal God operates within time. We do not understand timelessness or eternity. Does God know sequence? If God makes a promise, then later adds a condition, how does that affect his faithfulness?

Second, if free will involves the ability to choose something other than what you chose, compatibilism disintegrates, because God can not have control. But if free will depends on choosing what you want, then Jonathan Edwards's argument preserves compatibilism.

Third, we have no concept of how God can be both sovereign and personal – yet the Bible asserts both. D.A. Carson explains:

We talk with one another, ask questions, hear answers, respond with love or wrath, cherish friendships, and so forth – and all of these elements demand the passage of time and presuppose finite actors. Similarly, in Scripture God can be portrayed asking questions, hearing answers . . . yet other texts insist he is also sovereign, the one "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Eph. 1:13). . . . In short, the mystery of compatibilism is traceable . . . to what we do not know about God.

But because the compatibilist cannot explain why men are held responsible for something they are "forced" to do, their opponents often chide them, claiming that they must "cry mystery" when they are cornered.

However, the appeal to mystery is made by many facets of Christian belief! If we could understand everything, what need would we have for faith? Most of us, in asserting Christ's deity, are careful not to understate his complete humanity. In developing a concept of Christ that focuses on passages which demonstrate his deity, we must be careful not to deny those which show his humanness. Some, by focusing on one pole or the other, have purported a Christ who either so spiritual he was not "made like us in every way" or else so human he was not "God the One and Only." Likewise, in this issue, we acknowledge the mystery and take pain to see that we do not focus on some texts to the exclusion of others.

And so, we must be careful in our thoughts to reconcile God's sovereignty with our responsibility. We can't leave some of the Bible texts behind! The strength of compatibilism is that it asserts, along with many Biblical passages, that God has absolute control but it also acknowledges that men are held responsible, in accordance with the Bible. It does not deny one Biblical concept in order to preserve the other.

Note also that this article seems to argue very much from the presuppositional point of view. You should really like this one Jim.

In short, my response to this is that the whole argument rests on the premise of God's "absolute control" over everything including men's actions which is not Biblical. A Biblical argument can be made to be sure but Biblical arguments used to be made for a motionless earth as well and we all know that the earth does in fact move. The Biblical arguments for a motionless Earth were founded on pretexts, that is they read information into the text that wasn't there by logical necessity. The same is true with the arguments for the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty. Information is assumed that it not expressly stated by the texts used to support the doctrine. Most prominently is the word 'sovereignty' itself. It is loaded with all sorts of meaning that the word does not have in any context other than that of Christian orthodoxy.

Are you really free? Name one decision or choice you made that was completely unconstrained. Prove me wrong by giving just one example of totally free choice you've ever made.

Irrelevant!
Did you know that more than two hundred senses of the word 'freedom' have been distinguished?
You should love this Jim! You could keep us all running around chasing alternate meanings of the word freedom till the cows come home!
Your question presumes a meaning of the word 'freedom' that is not germane to the issue of whether or not we can choose in such a way that we are morally responsible for those choices.
Further, your question implies the idea of causation which if true we truely are not free at all. We seem to choose what we do but those choices were events and each event has a cause which itself is an event that was caused which follows an unbroken chain all the way back to the original uncaused cause which is God Himself. Very nice Jim, you've just painted yourself into a corner that disallows any and all moral culpability on the part of any human being because we are all just going through the inevitable motions of life controlled utterly not by God but simply by the irresistible force of causation.

There you go. That paragraph disqualifies you from saying anything about compatibilism because you do. Not. Under. Stand. It. Apparently, you never have, so all your boasting about being such a smart former Calvinist notwithstanding, you're still clueless.

You are a liar Jim. I cannot believe this! You absolutely know that this is not true! Why would you say such an idiotic thing. It really does seem like you forget that this is a public forum where what people say sticks around for a long time where a lot of people have ready access to it and are able to read it at their leisure.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. You are not nearly as smart as you apparently thing you are! This insipid "you don't agree with me so your stupid and should sit down and shut up" sort of argument is ridiculous. You sound like a third grade child for crying out loud. You need to grow up or go away, this is really getting old!

Prove that you're free.

1. God is just.
2. Holding someone morally responsible for an act they have committed when they could not have chosen to do otherwise is unjust.
3. God does hold us morally responsible for our action.

Therefore

We are able to choose to do other than what we actually do (i.e. we are free).

A denial of this conclusion is inevitably a denial of God's justice.

They are. All descriptions of God are anthropopathic or anthropomorphic.

So says you. Where did you get this information. Show it to me.

Because God is incomprehensible. We can only acquire brief and limited glimpses of Him.

To some degree of course but completely, I don't think so. The Bible clearly teaches that we are to have a relationship with God. This would not be possible if God were totally different that us in every respect and thus totally incomprehensible. Indeed the Bible teaches just the reverse. We are made in His image and so we are similar to Him in at least some very important respects.

I don't know what He is really like. No one does.

This is a COMPLETELY unbiblical statement! It is paramount to admitting that one is not a Christian! And it certainly puts you way outside of your presuppositional camp. At the very least you should say that God is the way the Bible presents Him to be but you've thrown that right out the window by relegating everything the Bible says about God to the status of a figure of speech that is not really giving us any information at all about what God is like.

The source is scripture.

Where? Where in Scripture does it tell you how to know when a phrase is figurative and when it is not, or now in your case, that every passage about God is figurative? Where is that information at Jim? Chapter and verse please!

I'm not convinced that you know what sola scriptura means.

Oh please; this is really getting beyond ridiculous! Are you really the only one who understands the Christian faith? Give me a break.

"Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum" - "What is not biblical is not theological."

Sound familiar?

Sola Scriptura is the Christian doctrine that teaches that everything pertaining to "faith and practice" must be able to be derived from Scripture alone.

The primary problem with sola Scriptura is that it is itself a doctrine that cannot be derived from Scripture alone. The reformation fathers had good intentions in that they desired to eliminate the authority of church tradition and Papal discourse (Magisterium) in matters of theology. It's just that they went a bit too far, it is an over reaction. Neither tradition or edicts from the Pope are wrong simply because they are what they are (ad hominem). They are wrong if they contradict that which can be confirmed to be the inspired Word of God. But where the Bible is silent we have freedom (actually we who are in Christ have freedom in any case, but that's a different topic).
Further there is information that can be gleaned about God and about spiritual matters that can be derived from extra-biblical sources. If this were not so then Rom. 1:20 makes no sense at all!

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Now if you want to say that there is no truth that can be discovered by any means that contradicts Scripture then I will happily agree with you, but that is not what the doctrine of sola Scriptura teaches, it goes a fairly sizable step beyond that.

Only Open Theists think that figures of speech are meaningless. That is how thick and impregnable their skulls are.

No Jim! I can't help but think that this is another intentional fabrication on your part, or to put a finer point on it, another lie.
No one has even suggested that figures of speech do not have meaning. On the contrary, on this very thread not so long ago I went into some detail explaining how figures of speech are the linguistic equivalent to individual words (you really do seem to forget that we can all read these posts and have access to them for months on end). The figure carries it own meaning which is independent of the individual words that make up the figure. If one does not understand the meaning of the figure before it is read then the sentence in which it is used cannot be understood. The figure must convey some sort of meaning or it is useless. This is why I have personally asked you about a thousand times to explain what all these figures of speech mean. You now say that nearly the entire Bible is one gigantic figure of speech. That's terrific! I wasn't aware of that! Please explain what the figures mean so that I can read the Bible and get what it is actually trying to tell me. You, so far, have totally refused to even make an attempt at explaining what all these countless figures of speech mean and so I can only conclude that you either do not know what they mean, or that in your system of theology they are meaningless. Which is it?

The laughable thing is Open Deists use figures all the time, but they claim that their figures of speech are intelligible. But when the Bible uses them, they're not intelligible. This is typical Open Doofuss rationale:

On the contrary Jim. We all acknowledge that the Bible uses figures of speech on every single page. Every. Single. Page. In fact, the only book I am aware of on the subject of figures of speech in the Bible is by E.W. Bullinger, a man whom all the Open Theists I know of hold up as a terrific scholar and hero of the faith.
The difference is that when we say that a certain passage is a figure we always explain what the figure means and why it means that. You (and every Calvinist I've ever met) either refuses to explain what their supposed figures mean or else they go into a brain freeze and stare at you with a stunned "Uh, nobody ever asked me that question before!" look on their face.

Autonomous man is the judge. Autonomous man determines truth. God and His Word need to just sit down, shut up,and get in line while autonomous man eats the forbidden fruit, assessing his Creator and deciding whether or not He is worthy of worship.

Have you completely lost you mind? Where did all this come from? Man is capable of determining truth but God is the Judge. God gets to decide what the rules are not man and certainly not you. Nothing I've said is in contradiction to what God had said in His Word and all your mindless protestations to the contrary won't change the facts. If I am wrong prove it, if you don't want to prove it then go away and stop wasting everybody's time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

We are able to choose to do other than what we actually do (i.e. we are free).

Then do it. Live a perfect life and prove Paul wrong.

Romans 7:14-23
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Hilston

You can tell yourself, "I can't come to a conclusion," but then you make a decision anyway. It's self-delusional to think that your deliberation was completely inconsequential to your decision.

the conclusion would be that no change occurred. how would that influence my decision though? bear in mind that after i came to that conclusion, i still waited a minute or two till i decided which path to choose.

Yes, I am. Without the grounding of our experiences and perception upon the testimony of special revelation, we have no certainty about reality.

like des cartes?

That is my view.

then i would agree with it per your definition.

Sure you are. You make the decision. It's your choice. If genetics have predetermined for you an intolerance of lactose-based food products, you still have a choice whether or not to drink a glass of milk.

um, that's actually my position. we must be talking past each other here.

No. But I'm not talking about people who do not make their own choices. Quite the opposite. People are held accountable for the choices they make, even though those choices are predetermined.

i'm still not sure i understand the logic that leads to this, but i'll wait to see how you explain "predetermined".

I define it biblically: pro-orizo; To mark out in advance. It means that God's infinitude extends to all of future, present and past history, all things without exception happening according to his determinate counsel.

so today for example, you hold that every action, every though and ever decision was already determined from eternity past even though today has yet to happen for us?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

hilston?

 

[Yorzhik]

Oops. I posted in the wrong thread. Sigh. I'll move it tomorrow...

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Then do it. Live a perfect life and prove Paul wrong.

Romans 7:14-23
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Nice try but you couldn't possibly pull Scripture any further out of its context. Paul is not making an argument about whether or not his actions are predestined.
Notice verse 25
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh [I serve] the law of sin.
The [I serve] being implied by the construction of the sentence.

Paul is saying that he sins against his will only in a figurative sense. In effect he is saying that he has two wills, one Spiritual the other carnal. Notice that he says that the law of sin is present within "my members". When he chooses to walk in the Spirit the carnal nature is suppressed, but the moment he CHOOSES to no longer walk in the Spirit the carnal law of sin within his members is active and he therefore sins. If you had continued to chapter 8 you would have seen this clearly for yourself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Nice try but you couldn't possibly pull Scripture any further out of its context. Paul is not making an argument about whether or not his actions are predestined.

I wasn't arguing for predestination. More like total depravity. You said, and I quote:

• We are able to choose to do other than what we actually do (i.e. we are free).

Paul stated otherwise. He specifically said that he COULD NOT choose to do other than what he actually does. He said he wants to do good, but his body won't let him; the sin within him keeps him CAPTIVE. He's not free. Thus, to your statement that you can choose to do other than what you actually do - that we are free - I say prove it. Prove Paul wrong. Live a perfect life, and choose to do that what you will to do (which I hope is to live a holy life, considering we are Christians) and do it perfectly. Better call Guiness's Records if you think you can actually do it...

 

[Z Man]

Hey TOL....

Hey TOL....

Paul says we're not free - Clete says we are. Who are you going to trust?

 

[Sozo]

Re: Hey TOL....

Re: Hey TOL....

Originally posted by Z Man

Paul says we're not free - Clete says we are. Who are you going to trust?

I'll probably get beat up for this, but I do not believe in free will apart from the gospel. Men are not free to either be righteous or unrighteous apart from the repentance of unbelief.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Re: Re: Hey TOL....

Re: Re: Hey TOL....

Originally posted by Sozo

I'll probably get beat up for this, but I do not believe in free will apart from the gospel. Men are not free to either be righteous or unrighteous apart from the repentance of unbelief.

can you explain that a little bit more please?

 

[Sozo]

Re: Re: Re: Hey TOL....

Re: Re: Re: Hey TOL....

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

can you explain that a little bit more please?

I believe that, apart from the gospel, men are completely incapable of exercising their will. They are not totally depraved (in that they are as bad as can be), but they are not free to not be unrighteous. The Law reveals that men can do nothing but practice evil, even though they may wish to do good.
The grace of God shows us that we are dead, and then He gives us the only Way out of that death, through faith in His Son. Once we accept that gift, and are made righteous, we do not have a free will to be unrighteous.

That's the abbreviated version. If you need more, let me know.

 

[Z Man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey TOL....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey TOL....

Originally posted by Sozo

The Law reveals that men can do nothing but practice evil, even though they may wish to do good.

That IS total depravity.

The grace of God shows us that we are dead, and then He gives us the only Way out of that death, through faith in His Son. Once we accept that gift, and are made righteous, we do not have a free will to be unrighteous.

You just said that you believe the Law reveals that men can do nothing but practice evil, even though they may wish to do good. Well, don't you think repenting is included?

The Bible says over and over again that no man can do good; Paul says in Romans that we have carnal minds that are enmity against God and that there is no way we can please Him. Thus, no man will, with a carnal mind, just simply 'accept' the grace from God and repent of their own will. God's grace is the act of taking away our stubborn, sinful, will that constantly rejects Him. When He does that, then we respond. We love Him, because He first loved us.

 

[Sozo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey TOL....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey TOL....

Originally posted by Z Man



You just said that you believe the Law reveals that men can do nothing but practice evil, even though they may wish to do good. Well, don't you think repenting is included?

No. That is the power of the gospel message. God reveals to man that He is righteous and we are not. He gives ALL men the opportunity, by grace through faith, to accept the gift of salvation.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

I wasn't arguing for predestination. More like total depravity. You said, and I quote:

• We are able to choose to do other than what we actually do (i.e. we are free).

Paul stated otherwise. He specifically said that he COULD NOT choose to do other than what he actually does. He said he wants to do good, but his body won't let him; the sin within him keeps him CAPTIVE. He's not free. Thus, to your statement that you can choose to do other than what you actually do - that we are free - I say prove it. Prove Paul wrong. Live a perfect life, and choose to do that what you will to do (which I hope is to live a holy life, considering we are Christians) and do it perfectly. Better call Guiness's Records if you think you can actually do it...

Paul is teaching that we cannot be righteous not that there are specific sins that we are going to commit. We still choose the specific actions that we do. He is saying that we as Christians want live righteously but we are unable to do it. He is not saying that we are incapable of doing anything good at all, only that we do not live a life that could be called righteous.
I can't jump across the Grand Canyon but that doesn't mean that I cannot get off the ground at all! Try as I might every attempt I make to jump across the canyon will end in dramatic failure but that does not mean that I cannot jump at all or that I have no legs.
Paul is not, by any means whatsoever, teaching Total Depravity. You are reading into the text information that is not there and twisting it to fit your theology. Instead you should adjust your theology to fit the text.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Paul is teaching that we cannot be righteous not that there are specific sins that we are going to commit. We still choose the specific actions that we do. He is saying that we as Christians want live righteously but we are unable to do it. He is not saying that we are incapable of doing anything good at all, only that we do not live a life that could be called righteous.

You're playing with words here. It's all the same thing. If we can't live a righteous life, we're not free. Back to your statement, Paul refutes it. He says that we CANNOT do what we will to do, that there is another thing inside of us, specifically sin, that keeps us captive. Paul gives the example of his own struggle. I just wanted to point out to you that your statement is not what Paul taught. He taught that we are NOT free; that we cannot do what we will to do because of the captivity of sin.

 

[Infamous Plug]

Re: post #1

Reading has got me thinking ,my mother works at a hospital and she told me one time ,There was an elderly women in there who was dying and she belonged to some Faith Works church and her minister was telling her that it was her lack of faith that was causing her to die.Meaning if she had more faith she wouldn't die . How could anyone twist up the teaching that bad and then sell it off like that.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned :kookoo:

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Infamous Plug

Reading has got me thinking ,my mother works at a hospital and she told me one time ,There was an elderly women in there who was dying and she belonged to some Faith Works church and her minister was telling her that it was her lack of faith that was causing her to die.Meaning if she had more faith she wouldn't die . How could anyone twist up the teaching that bad and then sell it off like that.

Mabye I'm just old fashioned

Aimiel... you're up!

 

[Yorzhik]

Sorry for the delay, oh Most Holy Father Vicar of Christ Monsignor High Priest Right Reverend Pope Hilston, Th.D., Ph.D., LMNOP. but I have been busy.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
If God controls our wants, then we can do no wrong, but we will also be robots, too.

Originally posted by Hilston
I'm through trying to explain this to Open Theists. I've never met an Open Theist who can admit to grasping the concept of compatibilism.

I think you are mistaking disagreement with misunderstanding. Compatiblism states that God has decreed everything, including freewill actions/choices, before creation. Is that correct?

Originally posted by Hilston
I can grasp the Open Theist's view, explain it, and refute it.

Likewise, if I've correctly stated your position above, I can claim a grasp of step 1 of the compatibilist view. If you can agree, then we can go on to what view is more in line with God's view.

Originally posted by Hilston
The Open Theist can't even get to step 1 with compatibilism. It is evidence to me (and whether anyone else sees this is irrelevant to me) that the Open Theist realizes how devasting an understanding of compatibilism is, and simply refuses to acknowledge it.

So, did I get step 1 right?

Originally posted by Hilston
That description applies to God's control of men's wants.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Right, therefore God has no right to be upset with men's actions, ...

Originally posted by Hilston
First of all, the idea of God "being upset" is an anthropopathism. God is not subject to the whims of man. He is not affected by anything outside of Himself in the same way that man is. God reacts (another anthropopathism) and relates to man in a way that is incomprehensible. We can only catch glimpses of God's character in the kind of language used in scripture. So God is never "upset with men's actions" as we might see other men react to other men's actions. Second, God has a right to do whatever He wants and answers to no one. If God chooses to condemn men for doing actions that He Himself decreed, who are we to complain? If you don't like it and wish to lodge a complaint, then you put yourself in the shoes of Job and Job's friends and Adam and everyone else who dared to question God's prerogative. That, to me, is Open Theism in a nutshell: "Question God's prerogative/come up with a humanistic explanation that makes God's actions more palatable."

Regardless of what God would do to a man being upset with Him, and regardless of a man's inability to do anything to or about God, doesn't the man have the right to be upset at God if God has a man do something that is contrary to the understanding of good that God reveled in man?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
... and men have the right to be angry at God when they are punished for "God's control".

Originally posted by Hilston
See what I mean?

Please, I'm very slow. I don't see what you mean.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Sure, and a controlled "want" is the responsibility of the one that is doing the controlling, ...

Originally posted by Hilston
The word "responsibility" doesn't apply to God. He does what He wants with impunity because He answers to, is responsible to, no one and nothing.

Then if we cannot say that God is responsible; can't we say that a person that is being controlled is divested of responsibility for the things they are controlled to do?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
... which includes the actions (sub-routines) that come from that want.

Originally posted by Hilston
Wrong. God can decree actions, desires, decisions and even sin, and arbitrarily hold men responsible for those actions. He is God. He is to be feared. This is one of those things that make Him most fearsome.

But man would also have the right to be upset (regardless of his ability to do anything about his anger) at being held responsible for something that he was decreed to do that was wrong when God told him it was wrong and not to do it, and even put in his heart that he would naturally understand it was wrong, and (according to the words "arbitrarily hold men responsible") would still be unable to divest himself of the responsibility for doing that wrong.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
No one. God is the biggest on the block. That doesn't preclude righteous anger at God by the free-will agents that He created if God was not fair with them.

Originally posted by Hilston
Um ... yes it does! This is what kills me. You actually put into the hands of men the right to question God?!?!? OMG!!!!!!!

Because God is the biggest on the block, that doesn't allow righteous anger?

Can you concede that man has the ability to get angry at God if they perceive that God is treating them unfairly?

Originally posted by Hilston
Can you think of anyplace where Paul asked why God found fault with man if His will cannot be resisted? But of course, according to the Open Theists, somehow God responded with, "No, you're wrong, my will CAN be resisted."

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Reference? Just let's get into this verse. You start since you brought it up.

Originally posted by Hilston
Ro 9:19

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

A part of Rom 9 which is a chapter chock full of seemingly predestination verses.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
If there are a finite number of games, you can see that when the first move is made, that the game has begun down one of the 10^20 (or so) paths? And if the first move is (for example) King pawn to King 4, then all the paths that start with another move are now precluded from being the game that started with King pawn to King 4 - Yes?

Originally posted by Hilston
Yes.

So among the games that start with King pawn to King 4, if all possible lines were known in advance, then whatever the reply is, only those lines that start with "King pawn to King 4 …" and "whatever that reply was" need to be considered. And of those that need to be considered, they will end in white win/black loss or white loss/black win or draw. And so if white wanted to eventually win the game, the next move white would make would come from the pool of moves that came next in the paths that need to be considered that ended in white win/black loss. Is that clear so far?