If I were to become Open Theist...

[Lon]

Your "Example" does not show how "one does not at all lead to the other"; it only confirms my point.

A game is completely known by a game programmer. There is absolutely nothing you can do in it that wouldn't be already known. There is absolutely nothing (nothing) that you have seen or done that isn't done in His creation. He is the programmer by analogy of all we experience.

When the developer creates a game and he forces you to play, knows you will not win, and charges you with the loss, there is nothing there that you can call "freedom".

Then, by extension, if I am right (I am, "without Him, nothing exists that exists" is clear) then you are accusing because your mind works that way. Mine does not. Does a programmer know you can get in there and mod a game? Are there cheaters? Yes there are. These too, however, are not outside of the program. Any good developer who doesn't know all (they work in teams and where analogy breaks down, programmers aren't God whom even Open Theists claim "knows all that is knowable."); still programs to stop cheaters and hackers.

Then 'forces you to play.' No, you can check out any time you like, but if you play (and you are), then you are in an environment fully created by God. Here is a question: why do you want God to not be able to program? Why do you want Him not to be the Creator of all we see and experience? Because a hacker got to the program? He fixed that with the Lord Jesus' work. In fact, you are a created being 'in' the program, so to speak! As such, yeah, you are forced to play as a being created. How it plays out is important. You are in something with importance and points to existing.

The developer predetermined your loss..., and..., you still have Calvin's dilemma. Many people would call it a scam and nobody would call it love.

I've played lots of games that seemed impossible. In fact a good portion of them I cannot finish without help. See? Open Theism jumps the gun and quits before it asks important questions like "is this game winnable?" "Absolutely, but not by yourself" is often a good answer.
So, 'to fail in predetermined loss?' No. You are supposed to win. Jesus made sure it could be won, thus Paul pressed on to the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Albeit analogy breaks down, a game is apt for consideration points.

Seems like your trying to claim "freedom" while trying to adhere to Calvin's 'Sovereignty'; you can't.

I don't care. That is the difference: His will is incredibly better than my own self-interested one. America steeps us in independent thought but consider:

Romans 12:5 we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

and

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Where is you located in either of these? Wherefore does one imperialize, especially in theology, one's free will and call it free will theism?
Aren't they actually promoting ideology, psychology, and anthropology over and above actual theology on point and confusing them in damage?

 

[Derf]

Your "Example" does not show how "one does not at all lead to the other"; it only confirms my point.

When the developer creates a game and he forces you to play, knows you will not win, and charges you with the loss, there is nothing there that you can call "freedom". The developer predetermined your loss..., and..., you still have Calvin's dilemma. Many people would call it a scam and nobody would call it love.

Seems like your trying to claim "freedom" while trying to adhere to Calvin's 'Sovereignty'; you can't.

Well, someone might call it love, but only because they were programmed to.

 

[Lon]

Well, someone might call it love, but only because they were programmed to.

More than, created in His image to do so. However, sin broke that: "Not that we loved God, but that He loved us..."
It is why I believe we are born in sin. The passage says we didn't/couldn't love God until He saved us. Perhaps you had a 'choice' at one time in your life to 'not love' but coming to Christ, we are indwelled and thus 'love because He first loved us.' 1 John 4:19 It is free will: His. "We" traded slave owners. Romans 6:20-23

 

[Derf]

More than, created in His image to do so. However, sin broke that: "Not that we loved God, but that He loved us..."
It is why I believe we are born in sin. The passage says we didn't/couldn't love God until He saved us. Perhaps you had a 'choice' at one time in your life to 'not love' but coming to Christ, we are indwelled and thus 'love because He first loved us.' 1 John 4:19 It is free will: His. "We" traded slave owners. Romans 6:20-23

The first sin wasn't because we were broken.

 

[Idolater]

More than, created in His image to do so. However, sin broke that: "Not that we loved God, but that He loved us..."
It is why I believe we are born in sin. The passage says we didn't/couldn't love God until He saved us. Perhaps you had a 'choice' at one time in your life to 'not love' but coming to Christ, we are indwelled and thus 'love because He first loved us.' 1 John 4:19 It is free will: His. "We" traded slave owners. Romans 6:20-23

All makes sense until you sin (I would say especially sin gravely, but I'm a standard Roman Catholic so that might be unnecessarily obfuscating) especially seriously, like adultery or something. Do you think an adulterer, a habitual adulterer, could be a regenerated Christian?

I mean as a standard Roman Catholic I even say, Possible. Habitual grave sin is a sign of diabolic onslaught, which indicates you should go to Confession for exorcism, and make a firm commitment to amendment BY AVOIDING NEAR OCCASION OF SIN.

 

[Idolater]

The first sin wasn't because we were broken.

It was prompted literally by a possessed by a demon (the original demon) serpent. It's the first time in the Bible demons are seen capable of possessing an animal, but not the last.

 

[Derf]

It was prompted literally by a possessed by a demon (the original demon) serpent. It's the first time in the Bible demons are seen capable of possessing an animal, but not the last.

If he was already a demon, then sin had already entered the garden and the world, and it wasn't "very good" anymore. But rather, I think, Satan and Adam sinned around the same time.

 

[Idolater]

If he was already a demon, then sin had already entered the garden and the world, and it wasn't "very good" anymore. But rather, I think, Satan and Adam sinned around the same time.

Sure, but I was only agreeing with your point about the first sin not coming from man's brokenness. The first sin broke him.

 

[Lon]

All makes sense until you sin (I would say especially sin gravely, but I'm a standard Roman Catholic so that might be unnecessarily obfuscating) especially seriously, like adultery or something. Do you think an adulterer, a habitual adulterer, could be a regenerated Christian?

I cannot say, such is a matter between Savior and soul. I'd reckon that one is in grave territory. In a sense, we could bring up Papal abuses: Were those priests God's? I don't know. If fruit was enough, we'd reckon not.

I mean as a standard Roman Catholic I even say, Possible.

Else we would all be lost. As such, I reckon we deal with the law and put those in prison and then it is between them and God. We do our due diligence in this world and leave, encourage their reckoning with the next.

Habitual grave sin is a sign of diabolic onslaught,

I hurt for those caught in habit. We all know what bad habits are. Are we diligent toward breaking them? Yet this isn't much on topic, just the condition of their soul and I'd reckon: pained, needing Christ.

which indicates you should go to Confession for exorcism, and make a firm commitment to amendment BY AVOIDING NEAR OCCASION OF SIN.

I understand, and can even appreciate the Catholic observance. Protestants go to a brother or sister, perhaps their pastor. "Shriven" I believe is the word you use.

 

[Lon]

If he was already a demon, then sin had already entered the garden

Of course, wherefore would the Serpent have lied? It isn't a bad suggestion. We either see the serpent as Satan, possessed, or a wicked animal?

and the world, and it wasn't "very good" anymore.

Creation can be good. The book of Job tells us Satan had access and conversation with God. If the serpent were kept in a cage, it'd have saved us?

But rather, I think, Satan and Adam sinned around the same time.

Interesting thought, but the serpent contradicted God "thou will not surely die."

 

[Lon]

The first sin wasn't because we were broken.

Rather, it was the breaking. They weren't 'free' to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The act and eating of the fruit of the tree were one and the same: knowledge and 'freedom' of good and evil. It was always a trading of masters. We were always owned. "Free" is a difficult concept other than we choose masters, as slaves to one or the other.

Matthew 6:24​