"All"

[Silverhair]

The offering of a “choice” doesn’t mean the hearer has the ability to make the choice. I understand that you believe that means the person isn’t responsible for rejecting the truth of the gospel, but that is applying secular reasoning to God’s Word.

Now there is a good piece of C/R logic. Compare OT law to NT grace.

You have God tell people that they have to trust in His son if they are to be saved all the while knowing that it is impossible for them to do so. Now if that does not make God disingenuous I am not sure what would.

By the way you do know that the law was intended to show people that they could not save themselves by keeping the law as no one could be perfect.

Gal_3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal_3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

So while none can keep the law man can make a free will choice to trust in or reject the Son. That is why Paul wrote "...I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." Rom 1:16

 

[atpollard]

Hebrews 3:12-15
12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
15 As it is said, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

So we agree that Human Ability is not the ONLY possible reason for the use of "IF" in Hebrews 3:7.
[I noted that you have moved on from both the original verse we were discussing and the points that I raised on possible interpretation of that verse.]

Why should the writer of Hebrews urge care of his brethren if it is God's decree that fundamentally orders their conduct and thinking, not their being careful?

In MY OPINION, he would have had no reason to. That is why I am not of the Hard Determinism camp, but embrace Compatibalism and Soft Determinism. People require no "encouragement" to do the wrong thing ... like Adam, we are fully equipped to 'miss the mark' completely on our own. We need a new heart and an indwelling Spirit to empower us to do the right things ... "works carried out in God" [John 3:20] and "good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" [Ephesians 2:10].

As James said: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." - James 1:13-15 [ESV]

And as Paul and John remind us: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." - Romans 3:10-12 and "people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed." - John 3:19-20

Remember, "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." - Philippians 2:13, so that is why "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." - Romans 9:16

That is COMPATIBALISM ... people are free to sin and GOD is free to empower "as many as were appointed to eternal life [to believe]." - Acts 13:48 [verb tense changed].

 

[Tenchi]

In MY OPINION, he would have had no reason to. That is why I am not of the Hard Determinism camp, but embrace Compatibalism and Soft Determinism. People require no "encouragement" to do the wrong thing ... like Adam, we are fully equipped to 'miss the mark' completely on our own.

As I understand it, compatibilism is just hard determinism pushed back a step. On compatibilism, people are free to choose according to their wants/desires but those desires are ultimately ordained by God, are they not? So, if our "wanters" are programmed by God, we are ultimately acting according to what He wants. I don't see the "softness" in this version of theistic determinism...

We need a new heart and an indwelling Spirit to empower us to do the right things ... "works carried out in God" [John 3:20] and "good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" [Ephesians 2:10].

Yes, we need God to produce in us the supernatural life to which He's called all of His children. Our best version of that supernatural life is not what Christian living is.

As James said: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." - James 1:13-15 [ESV]

Right.

And as Paul and John remind us: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." - Romans 3:10-12 and "people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed." - John 3:19-20

Uh huh.

Remember, "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." - Philippians 2:13, so that is why "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." - Romans 9:16

Yes...

That is COMPATIBALISM ... people are free to sin and GOD is free to empower "as many as were appointed to eternal life [to believe]." - Acts 13:48 [verb tense changed].

Oh? I understand compatibilism as I've described it above. Do you think God doesn't make us as we are?

 

[Silverhair]

Naw ... Just a "tit for tat" (one false accusation based on a caricature of beliefs deserved another).

[I am a Compatibalist and not a Hard Determinist.]

But is not campatiblism just, as William James said, “kinder-gentler” picture of determinism “a bag of verbal tricks which they deploy as a way to avoid the real intellectual problems of free will”.

If you hold to the DoG/TULIP then how can you say you do not hold to determinism?

 

[atpollard]

As I understand it, compatibilism is just hard determinism pushed back a step. On compatibilism, people are free to choose according to their wants/desires but those desires are ultimately ordained by God, are they not? So, if our "wanters" are programmed by God, we are ultimately acting according to what He wants. I don't see the "softness" in this version of theistic determinism...

I prefer to draw my opinions from scripture and then shop for a label that fits closest.

Start with Genesis 50:20 as the ending point where GOD issues the final sentence on what was REALLY happening. We have "their free will" (you meant) working to accomplish "God's Plan".

Genesis 50:20 [ESV] As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

So what did it look like back in Genesis 37.

Did GOD "make" Joseph's brothers hate him? ... no, I think credit for that goes back to Jacob and the crazy family dynamic where women (multiple wives and slaves) compete in a child-bearing Olympic to buy the love of Jacob.

Note Gen 37:20 ... they wanted to KILL Joseph. That was the free will of man. That was contrary to the plan of God ... so God restrained their evil. God did not steal their free will, God merely turned their hearts to allow them to choose from among the many OTHER evil options available to their hearts. Romans 1 talks about this. God "gives men over to" evil desires of their hearts (which implies that he did not give them over prior to that) - restrains and allows - limits on free will without violating that free will.

Note what actually happens after Gen 37:20 ... they do not kill Joseph, SLAVERS "just happen along" at that moment. Slavers "just happen to be heading to Egypt". The Brothers freely choose to sell Joseph to the slavers who bring him to the very place that GOD wants Joseph to advance the Plan of God. EACH PERSON acted according to their free will ... and each action advanced GOD'S PLAN.

Once in Egypt, Joseph COULD have been sold to anyone ... a Court Official exercised his free will and CHOSE to purchase Joseph, where Joseph "just happened" to learn the skills that he would need later in Pharaoh's court. Both the wife, Pottifer and Joseph all exercised their free will and their actions "just happened" to land Joseph in prison where he would "just happen" to meet people important to God's Plan and to learn organizational skills vital to saving a nation (including Israel).

Pharaoh had a dream (God's work) and everyone exercised their free will to bring us to Genesis 50:20 ... God's Plan.

As an aside, along the way, God cured Joseph of his arrogance and healed the family of Jacob. [You are welcome].

THIS is MY definition of COMPATIBALISM. Every person did what they wanted according to their free will (subject to the same limits on EVIL that Satan was in Job ... "you may go THIS FAR and no further"). And through it all, GOD's PLAN was accomplished.

 

[Silverhair]

Calvinist; Dr. James N. Anderson, of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC, in his published work; Calvinism and the first sin, states the underlying proposition: “It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God…..take it for granted as something on which the vast majority of Calvinists uphold, and may be expressed as the following: “For every event [E], God decided that [E] should happen and that decision alone was the ultimate sufficient cause of [E].” Dr. Anderson also states that Calvinism is committed to a compatiblist form of free will.

The problem for those of the C/R view is that their view of free will is neither biblical or logical.

If compatiblism is true, then free will is the will of man choosing in accordance to the strongest desire. If so, then it is circular and therefore irrational and must be abandoned.
Here is the circle:
a} People choose according to their strongest desire, and b} we know it was their strongest desire because they chose it, and a} they chose it because people choose according to their strongest desire, and b} we know it was their strongest desire because they chose it. And round and round it goes.

The only reason that for someone to believe that man does not have a free will with which to evaluate the evidence for God is because they in fact do have a free will. The only other option is that their view was determined for them so they have no rational way to state an opinion as that requires the ability to evaluate information and make a choice.

 

[atpollard]

Calvinist; Dr. James N. Anderson, of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC, in his published work; Calvinism and the first sin, states the underlying proposition: “It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God…..take it for granted as something on which the vast majority of Calvinists uphold, and may be expressed as the following: “For every event [E], God decided that [E] should happen and that decision alone was the ultimate sufficient cause of [E].” Dr. Anderson also states that Calvinism is committed to a compatiblist form of free will.

I am not bound by the opinions of Mr Anderson (or those of John Calvin). I stated what I believe and why … and it comes from Biblical and empirical observations.

 

[Silverhair]

I am not bound by the opinions of Mr Anderson (or those of John Calvin). I stated what I believe and why … and it comes from Biblical and empirical observations.

But I see you avoid the last comment I posted.

The only reason that for someone to believe that man does not have a free will with which to evaluate the evidence for God is because they in fact do have a free will. The only other option is that their view was determined for them so they have no rational way to state an opinion as that requires the ability to evaluate information and make a choice.

But compatibilism does not allow for you to have the ability to evaluate information that comes from the bible or empirical observations. All your choices and views have been predetermined by God.

Compatibilism contends that a person can act freely even though that action is determined by God. But if their strongest desire is determined by God then it is logically not done through his free will but rather it has been determined by God. So your compatibilism is no different than hard determinism.

You have to redefine free will and thus make the term meaningless.