"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.

 

[atpollard]

But I see you avoid the last comment I posted.

Yes, deliberately so.

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.

I am 99% sure that you are operating under a flawed definition of "Free Will" [speaking from the Philosophical definition of Free Will ... in popular vernacular, "Free Will" has as many definitions as "Calvinism" ... one per person using the term]. Any response I made to your comment would not lead to productive conversation.

People are completely free to choose to accept God's offer or reject God's offer and because of SOMETHING, natural man chooses to reject God's offer 100% of the time. This prompts a response on God's part to change that SOMETHING, which then allows people to freely choose to accept God's offer 100% of the time. Scripture frequently uses terms like "draw" or or "gift" and references to a "heart" or the metaphor of "slave" to describe this REALITY.

I have no particular desire to argue over the nature or existence of the SOMETHING, to me it seems both Scripturally and empirically self evident - as is the "draw/gift" that transforms the "heart/slave" in the lives of some and not others. It is like arguing whether the earth is really flat or a sphere ... what could possibly be gained by trying to convince someone who insists that the earth is flat of the obvious truth (they will never believe and the truth is obvious to you).

 

[atpollard]

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.

I defined what I believe from the story of Joseph and reference to God and Man's actions in both Job and Romans 1. If you object to calling that "Compatibalism", then so be it. However, I would note that the individuals exercised Free Will (the ability to make REAL choices from among options) and God's will was ultimately how events unfolded (the definition of determinism) ... so BOTH Man's Free Will and God's Determined Plan operated in sync ... they were compatible!

 

[atpollard]

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

Free will is the ability to make REAL choices, not ANY choice.

Right now, I can choose to respond to your post or I can choose to not respond or I can eat a Pop Tart or I can puch the worker in the next desd or I can break a pen in half or I can doodle on a pad of paper. These are all REAL CHOICES that are available to me. I cannot choose to solve the Unified Field Theorem or call Putin and broker peace in Ukraine ... there are not REAL CHOICES available to me (I lack the math for the first and do not know Putin's phone number or have the political clout for the second). Thus I have free will, but I cannot do ANYTHING.

Looking back to Joseph's brothers. They had REAL CHOICES:
They could love Joseph as a brother.
They could ignore Joseph.
They could beat Joseph.
They could sell Joseph into slavery.
They could kill Joseph.

Their "greatest desire" was to kill Joseph.
God's predetermined Plan was for Israel to live in EGYPT as slaves so God could send MOSES to deliver them and provide the Passover to help us understand the coming mission of JESUS CHRIST.
God blocked their option to KILL Joseph (that was contrary to God's Plan). [Note that God used the Free Will of one of the brothers to block the action - God touched a heart to empower someone to choose better.]

The brothers still had REAL CHOICES (Free Will) and selected the next greatest desire of their heart (sell Joseph into slavery) ... which was compatible with God's BIG PLAN.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes, deliberately so.


I am 99% sure that you are operating under a flawed definition of "Free Will" [speaking from the Philosophical definition of Free Will ... in popular vernacular, "Free Will" has as many definitions as "Calvinism" ... one per person using the term]. Any response I made to your comment would not lead to productive conversation.

People are completely free to choose to accept God's offer or reject God's offer and because of SOMETHING, natural man chooses to reject God's offer 100% of the time. This prompts a response on God's part to change that SOMETHING, which then allows people to freely choose to accept God's offer 100% of the time. Scripture frequently uses terms like "draw" or or "gift" and references to a "heart" or the metaphor of "slave" to describe this REALITY.

I have no particular desire to argue over the nature or existence of the SOMETHING, to me it seems both Scripturally and empirically self evident - as is the "draw/gift" that transforms the "heart/slave" in the lives of some and not others. It is like arguing whether the earth is really flat or a sphere ... what could possibly be gained by trying to convince someone who insists that the earth is flat of the obvious truth (they will never believe and the truth is obvious to you).

So in reality you as a C/R do not actually have the ability to make freely evaluated comments. Your own philosophy negates that possibility. You are just regurgitating what it has been determined that you say. So you cannot logically argue any point.

That is the position your C/R determinism has put you in.

I am 100% sure that you are operating under a flawed definition of "Free Will" as you deny man's ability to make real free choices. C/R determinism requires that God determine all that happens and thus eliminates all possibility of man to make real choices. The LBCF, a reformed document, states your view clearly "God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass" Then they try to soften those words when they saw the logical outcome of that stance.

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). This does not require the person to be able to choose anything, nor does it require the absence of other influencing factors such as creation, conviction of sin, the gospel message, etc. It only requires the ability for a person confronted with a decision to be able to choose from among one or more possible options.
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen.

When you look at scripture through the cracked lens of the C/R it is a distorted view that you will see.

I do not have to filter the word of God through some man-make philosophy as you do. The truth of the bible is obvious to me,

 

[Silverhair]

I defined what I believe from the story of Joseph and reference to God and Man's actions in both Job and Romans 1. If you object to calling that "Compatibalism", then so be it. However, I would note that the individuals exercised Free Will (the ability to make REAL choices from among options) and God's will was ultimately how events unfolded (the definition of determinism) ... so BOTH Man's Free Will and God's Determined Plan operated in sync ... they were compatible!

God's plan was worked out through the free will actions of men. But that is not your Compatibalism. Your Compatibalism requires that all they actions were actually determined before hand and thus eliminates free will.

 

[Silverhair]

Free will is the ability to make REAL choices, not ANY choice.

Right now, I can choose to respond to your post or I can choose to not respond or I can eat a Pop Tart or I can puch the worker in the next desd or I can break a pen in half or I can doodle on a pad of paper. These are all REAL CHOICES that are available to me. I cannot choose to solve the Unified Field Theorem or call Putin and broker peace in Ukraine ... there are not REAL CHOICES available to me (I lack the math for the first and do not know Putin's phone number or have the political clout for the second). Thus I have free will, but I cannot do ANYTHING.

Looking back to Joseph's brothers. They had REAL CHOICES:
They could love Joseph as a brother.
They could ignore Joseph.
They could beat Joseph.
They could sell Joseph into slavery.
They could kill Joseph.

Their "greatest desire" was to kill Joseph.
God's predetermined Plan was for Israel to live in EGYPT as slaves so God could send MOSES to deliver them and provide the Passover to help us understand the coming mission of JESUS CHRIST.
God blocked their option to KILL Joseph (that was contrary to God's Plan). [Note that God used the Free Will of one of the brothers to block the action - God touched a heart to empower someone to choose better.]

The brothers still had REAL CHOICES (Free Will) and selected the next greatest desire of their heart (sell Joseph into slavery) ... which was compatible with God's BIG PLAN.

Again what you have shown is not your Compatibalism. If God determines what the person should do that is not free will in any sense of the word.

Compatibilism, despite what the name suggests, doesn’t reconcile free will and determinism. Compatibilism, at most, would explain why we feel like we’re free when we make our actions even though we’re determined. But it doesn’t actually let us affirm the two propositions; (A) Man is determined, and (B) Man is free. Why? Because on compatibilism, man still cannot choose between alternatives.
In other words you cannot choose anything except what you were determined {by God} to choose. Lest you think I am being unfair in this comment about compatibilism see the definition given at

https://www.monergismDOTcom/topics/free-will/compatibilism

 

[atpollard]

So in reality you as a C/R do not actually have the ability to make freely evaluated comments. Your own philosophy negates that possibility. You are just regurgitating what it has been determined that you say. So you cannot logically argue any point.

That is the position your C/R determinism has put you in.

See, no matter what I say to the contrary, you tell me "The world is flat".

 

[atpollard]

God's plan was worked out through the free will actions of men. But that is not your Compatibalism. Your Compatibalism requires that all they actions were actually determined before hand and thus eliminates free will.

God sure got LUCKY that so many things "just happened" to work out from their desire to KILL Joseph to the PASSOVER story that taught is about the BLOOD and the LAMB and being SAVED by Christ. Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes and this just happens to be the one Universe where God's impotent plan came true?

 

[Silverhair]

See, no matter what I say to the contrary, you tell me "The world is flat".

See, no matter what I show you you still insist that your man-made philosophy is correct ans the bible is wrong.

 

[Silverhair]

God sure got LUCKY that so many things "just happened" to work out from their desire to KILL Joseph to the PASSOVER story that taught is about the BLOOD and the LAMB and being SAVED by Christ. Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes and this just happens to be the one Universe where God's impotent plan came true?

God does not need too determine all things, which would have to include evil to fit your view, in order to have His plan work out.

He is sovereign after all.

The difference is that you need God to control all things via divine determinism and I just trust what the bible says and shows, that He is sovereign and man has an actual God given free will.

 

[atpollard]

See, no matter what I show you you still insist that your man-made philosophy is correct ans the bible is wrong.

I am pretty sure the narrative events of Genesis leading up to Genesis 50:20 are not "man-made philosophy", but they do illustrate that "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" ... FREE WILL and GOD'S PLAN both fully compatible in the same actions.

"Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand." -Proverbs 19:21 [ESV]

 

[atpollard]

The difference is that you need God to control all things via divine determinism

Please quote where I said that, because I think that I have gone to GREAT LENGTHS to demonstrate that I do not view God as a pupet-master and Hard Determinism as God's modus operandi.