"All"

[Silverhair]

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]

God's plan and man's free will can be compatible but that is not what your compatibalism requires.

That seems to be something that you have not grasped as of yet.

Compatibilism (aka soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices occur through divine determinism. It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will.

Now that comes from a C/R web site and is in line with both the WCF & LBCF.

In both hard and soft deterministic positions, there is no tug-of-war between what God has decreed from eternity past and what a person actually performs in time. As a matter of fact, the WCF & LBCF insist that the “liberty or contingency of second causes” is not taken away, “but rather established,” proving that God has even decreed all of the components which contribute toward a given action.
In other words, when Calvinists insist that God has not merely decreed the end but also the means to an end, then that, by necessity, must include secondary causes. So, while they clamor that the so-called contingency of second causes is not removed from the concept, what is absolutely necessary to confess is that God also decreed the secondary causes. That is to say, that, the alleged freedom to which the compatibilist attempts to concede is disingenuous at best given that even the alleged freedom to choose what God has decreed the person to choose was also decreed by God for them. Compatibilism, then, is a theory involving mere words but no reality.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

Are you now saying you do not hold to the DoG/TULIP or agree with the WCF/LBCF. You may not call God a puppet master but your theology makes Him one.

Even your stated view of compatibilism comes to that logical conclusion although you will deny it.

 

[atpollard]

Soft Determinism In Psychology​

By
Riley Hoffman
Updated on
October 10, 2023

Reviewed by
Saul McLeod, PhD
&
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Soft determinism, also known as compatibilism, is the belief that determinism is compatible with free will and moral responsibility.
In other words, soft determinism states that even though all events in the world are predetermined by what came before them, it is still possible for people to have free will and thus be morally responsible for their actions.
Soft determinism is one branch of determinism. Determinism is the idea that everything that happens could not have gone otherwise; each event has a fixed outcome because of everything that led to it.
American psychologist and philosopher William James first used the term soft determinism in his essay “The Dilemma of Determinism” (James, 1895).
Soft determinism is a branch of determinism that differs from hard determinism. These branches differ in their views on whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe. Soft determinists believe that free will is possible in a deterministic universe, even when everything is predetermined.
They believe that as long as no external forces force someone to make a certain choice, the person has made a free choice.

Important Definitions​

• Determinism: The philosophy that all events are predetermined, by the chain of events that came before them.
• Soft determinism/compatibilism: The philosophy that determinism is compatible with the possibility of free will and moral responsibility for one’s actions.
• Hard determinism/incompatibilism: The philosophy that determinism makes it impossible to have free will and moral responsibility for one’s actions.

Examples of soft determinism​

Nagel’s example of the peach or the cake​

To explain the idea of determinism, philosopher Thomas Nagel (1987) uses an example of choosing between selecting a peach or a piece of chocolate cake out of a cafeteria line.
If you choose the cake and think to yourself, “I could have chosen the peach instead,” what does that mean, and is it true?
A soft determinist would say that because of some combination of your genetics, your life experiences, your environmental surroundings, and other factors, the fact that you chose the cake was inevitable.
The process of you deciding to choose the cake was just the follow-through of a predetermined conclusion. It is not possible that you could have chosen the peach instead of the cake.
However, you still acted with free will because there was no external force compelling you to choose the cake and not the peach; no one was constraining you or forcing you, and therefore you made the choice freely.

Another example: To study or to party?​

Imagine a Friday night where you have a choice to stay home and study for a big exam on Monday, or to go to a party with friends, and you end up choosing to stay home and study.
A soft determinist would say that this choice was predetermined; you were always destined to choose to study because of some combination of your genetics, how your parents raised you to value education, your knowledge that the exam is very important, and your desire to get a good grade, and so on.
However, even though your choice to study was inevitable, you still acted with free will because your choice was in line with your desires and motivations.

Arguments in favor of soft determinism​

Soft determinism relies on a certain definition of the concept of “freedom.” It argues the natural meaning of “freedom” is lack of restraint or compulsion.

Soft determinists argue that when people think about “free will,” they are referring to physical and psychological freedom from being forced to act or constrained into not acting a certain way. They argue that this definition of “freedom” is most intuitive.

Soft determinists argue that given this intuitive definition of freedom, free will is possible under determinism because the only necessary condition for free will is that someone is free from restraint and compulsion.

Even if all of someone’s personality, desires, and motivation may be predetermined by nature and nurture, they can still have free will and make free choices within how they are predisposed to act or think.

One philosopher who argued in favor of soft determinism was Harry Frankfurt. Frankfurt (1971) argued that people have free will when they have a certain psychological structure; namely, when their first-order desires align with their second-order desires.

Frankfurt defines first-order desire as “what you want,” and second-order desire as “what you want to want.” Someone has free will if what they want aligns with what they want to want.

For instance, if your first-order desire is to go for a walk, and your second-order desire is to want to walk, then your first and second-order desires align, and you are free.

This is how it is possible to be free under determinism: Even though your first and second-order desires may be pre-determined, you are free since they align with each other.

Arguments against soft determinism​

Critics of soft determinism generally fall into two categories: those who disagree that determinism is true at all, and those who agree that determinism is true, but disagree with compatibilism and argue that determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility (Strawson, n.d.).

Critics of soft determinism who instead believe in hard determinism argue that the former does not encompass a complete understanding of the nature of determinism and free will. They believe that under determinism, it is impossible to have free will or be morally responsible for one’s actions.

Hard determinists believe that the soft determinist definition of free will is not sufficient. They believe that the soft determinist definition of freedom is contrived and does not get to the true meaning of freedom. Kant referred to soft determinism as a “wretched subterfuge…, a petty word-juggerly.”

These hard determinists believe that if all of a person’s thoughts, desires, and choices are predetermined by factors often out of their control, then it is impossible to be truly free or morally responsible for their actions.

Besides the hard determinism, there are two additional major schools of thought that disagree with soft determinism: libertarianism, and pessimism.

The libertarianists believe that we have free will, but this is incompatible with determinism, so determinism must not be true.

On the other hand, the pessimists, or no-freedom theorists, believe that free will is impossible, whether or not determinism is true.

Psychological research on people’s beliefs about free will​

Several researchers have investigated the psychology behind people’s beliefs about determinism, free will, and moral responsibility.
Nichols and Knobe (2007) investigated how the phrasing of questions about these issues affects people’s responses. They found that when they asked people questions about the consequences of determinism in an abstract sense, people’s answers aligned with hard determinism.

For example, if asked, “If everything in the world was predetermined, would it be possible to have free will?” participants often said it wouldn’t be possible. However, when you asked people specific, emotionally-triggering questions about the consequences of determinism, their answers became more aligned with soft determinism.

Nahmias (2011) shows that hard determinism is unintuitive for average people. The author argues that this evidence provides support in the direction of soft determinism.

The author also provides evidence that when you talk to average people about determinism, they often confuse it with bypassing, a distinct psychological phenomenon in which our minds have no say in our bodies’ choices.

References​

Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), pp. 5-20. Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person - Volume 68, Issue 1, January 1971

James, W. (1896). The dilemma of determinism. In W. James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (pp. 145–183). Longmans, Green and Co. APA PsycNet

Nagel, T. (1987). Free will. In T. Nagel, What does it all mean? A very short introduction to philosophy. Oxford University Press.

Nahmias, E. (2011). Intuitions about free will, determinism, and bypassing. In Robert Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will: Second Edition. Oxford University Press.

Nichols, S., & Knobe, J. (2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: The cognitive science of folk intuition. Noûs, 41(4), pp. 663-685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00666.x

 

[atpollard]

Got Questions: What is compatibilism?​

Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile the theological proposition that every event is causally determined, ordained, and/or decreed by God (i.e., determinism, not to be confused with fatalism)—with the free will of man. Promulgated originally from a philosophical viewpoint by the Greek Stoics and later by numerous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, and from a theological viewpoint by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin, the compatibilist concept of free will states that though the free will of man seems irreconcilable with the proposition of determinism, they both do exist and are “compatible” with one another.

The foundation of the compatibilistic concept of free will is the means by which “will” is defined. From a theological viewpoint, the definition of the will is viewed in light of the revealed, biblical truths of original sin and the spiritual depravity of man. These two truths render the definition of “will” in regard to fallen man as “captive to sin” (Acts 8:23), a “slave of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:16-17) and subject only to its “master,” which is sin (Romans 6:14). As such, although the will of man is “free” to do as it wishes, it wishes to act according to its nature, and since the nature of the fallen will is sinful, every intent of the thoughts of the fallen man’s heart is “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, cf. Genesis 8:21). He, being naturally rebellious to that which is spiritually good (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14), “is bent only on rebellion” (Proverbs 17:11). Essentially, man is “free” to do as he wishes, and he does just that, but man simply cannot do that which is contrary to his nature. What man “wills” to do is subject to and determined solely by his nature.

Here is where compatibilism makes the distinction between man having a free will and being a “free agent.” Man is “free” to choose that which is determined by his nature or by the laws of nature. To illustrate, the laws of nature prohibit man from being able to fly, but this does not mean that man is not free. The agent, man, is only free to do that which his nature or the laws of nature allow him to do. Theologically speaking, though the natural man is unable to submit himself to the law of God (Romans 8:7-8) and unable to come to Christ unless the Father draws him to Him (John 6:44), the natural man still acts freely in respect to his nature. He freely and actively suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) because his nature renders him unable to do otherwise (Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10-11). Two good examples of Jesus’ confirmation of this concept can be found in Matthew 7:16-27 and Matthew 12:34-37.

With the distinction between free agency and free will defined, compatibilism then addresses the nature of the free agency of man in respect to the theological proposition known as determinism and/or the biblical truth of the omniscient nature of God. The foundational issue is how man can be held accountable for his actions if his actions were always going to occur (i.e., the future is not subject to change) and could not have been anything other than that which occurred. Although there are numerous passages of Scripture that address this issue, there are three primary passages to examine.

The story of Joseph and his brothers
The first is the story of Joseph and his brothers (Genesis 37). Joseph was hated by his brothers because their father, Jacob, loved Joseph more than any of his other sons (Genesis 37:3) and because of Joseph’s dreams and their interpretation (Genesis 37:5-11). At an opportune time, Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave to traveling Midianite traders. Then they dipped his tunic in the blood of a slain goat in order to deceive their father into thinking Joseph had been mauled by a beast (Genesis 37:18-33). After many years, during which Joseph had been blessed by the Lord, Joseph’s brothers meet him in Egypt, and Joseph reveals himself to them (Genesis 45:3-4). It is Joseph’s discussion with his brothers that is most pertinent to the issue:

“So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt” (Genesis 45:8).

What makes this statement startling is that Joseph had previously said his brothers had, in fact, sold him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5). A few chapters later, the concept of compatibilism is presented:

“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).

The Genesis story tells us that it was, in fact, the brothers who sold Joseph into Egypt. However, Joseph makes it clear that God had done so. Those who reject the concept of compatibilism would say that this verse is simply stating that God “used” Joseph’s brothers’ actions for good. However, this is not what the text says. From Genesis 45-50, we are told that (1) Joseph’s brothers had sent Joseph to Egypt, (2) God had sent Joseph to Egypt, (3) Joseph’s brothers had evil intentions in sending Joseph to Egypt, and (4) God had good intentions in sending Joseph to Egypt. So, the question is, who sent Joseph to Egypt? The bewildering answer is that both Joseph’s brothers and God did. It was one action being carried out by two entities, the brothers and God doing it simultaneously.

 

[atpollard]

(continued)

The commission of Assyria
The second passage that reveals compatibilism is found in Isaiah 10, a prophetic warning passage for God’s people. As divinely promised in Deuteronomy 28-29, God is sending a nation to punish His people for their sins. Isaiah 10:6 says that Assyria is the rod of God’s anger, “commissioned” against God’s people to “seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets.” Notice, however, what God says about Assyria:
“Yet [Assyria] does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations” (Isaiah 10:7, NASB).
God’s intent in the Assyrian invasion is to inflict His righteous judgment against sin, and the intent of the Assyrians is to “destroy and cut off many nations.” Two different purposes, two different entities acting to bring about this purpose, in one, single action. As we read further, God reveals that, although this destruction is determined and decreed by Him (Isaiah 10:23), He will still punish the Assyrians because of the “arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness” (Isaiah 10:12, cf. Isaiah 10:15). Even though God Himself had infallibly determined the judgment of a disobedient people, He holds those who brought the judgment accountable for their own actions.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ
The third passage of Scripture that speaks of compatibilism is found in Acts 4:23-28. As revealed in Acts 2:23-25, Christ’s death on the cross was carried out by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” Acts 4:27-28 further reveals that the actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel had been determined and decreed by God Himself to occur as they “gathered together against” Jesus and did “what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Although God had determined that Christ should die, those responsible for His death were still held accountable for their actions. Christ was put to death by wicked men, “yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer” (Isaiah 53:10). Once again, the answer to the question "who put Jesus to death?" is both God and the wicked people—two purposes carried out by two entities within a single action.
There are other passages of Scripture that pertain to the concept of compatibilism, such as God hardening the hearts of individuals (e.g., Exodus 4:21; Joshua 11:20; Isaiah 63:17). While compatibilism seems bewildering to us (Job 9:10; Isaiah 55:8-11; Romans 11:33), this truth has been revealed by God Himself as the means by which His sovereign decree is reconciled with the will of man. God is sovereign over all things (Psalm 115:3, Daniel 4:35, Matthew 10:29-30), God knows all things (Job 37:16; Psalm 147:5; 1 John 3:19-20), and man is held accountable for what he does (Genesis 18:25; Acts 17:31; Jude 1:15). Truly, His ways are unfathomable (Job 9:10; Romans 11:33), and so we should trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6).

 

[atpollard]

@Silverhair
Since you will not believe me when I claim what it is, perhaps you will listen to other sources that define "Compatibalism" as something different from HARD DETERMINISM or even FATALISM (as you seem to advocate).

 

[Tenchi]

Did GOD "make" Joseph's brothers hate him? ... no,

What are your scare quotes implying?

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.

The desire of the brothers to kill Joseph was the "free will of man"? Not according to Calvinists of the "higher," harder sort.

Where in the account in Genesis 37 does it say God restrained the evil desire of the brothers? I read only of Reuben, who was never in favor of killing Joseph (verses 21-22), intervening to keep Joseph alive. God used Reuben's favorable mind toward Joseph to keep Joseph alive, but did God compel Reuben to feel as he did about killing Joseph, and did He alter or restrain the bloodthirsty desire of the other brothers? These things would all have to be assumed to be the case in this part of the story.

If God "steers" a person's will into His course (rather than overtly and abruptly wresting a person's will into it) what purpose does the freedom of that person's will serve, exactly? Whether in or out of the velvet glove, the "iron fist" of God's will is exerted in a negating fashion upon the will of His creature, is it not?

Your language is rather tortured, it seems to me, in attempting to describe what you think God did to Joseph's brothers: "turned their hearts to allow them to choose...". Does the story say that the brothers would not have killed Joseph if Reuben had not intervened? No. According to the story, the killing desire of the brothers wasn't altered by some inner restraint of God, but by the external resistance of their oldest brother to the plan to kill Joseph.

If Bobby has five popsicles in front of him and chooses the raspberry-flavored one and, as he reaches for it, I gently guide his hand to the peach-flavored popsicle, telling him that he ought to let his little sister, Suzy, have the raspberry one, how have I not directly interfered with Bobby's freedom to choose? I could say that I turned Bobby's hand to allow him to choose among the many other popsicle options, but, more simply and honestly, what I did was stop Bobby from fully enacting his will.

Anyway, I think that God "giving over" vain, rebellious people to their evil desires in Romans 1 is not God imposing upon these people a retributive set of self-destructive desires but simply utterly removing all general constraining influence He has had upon them. Instead of constricting the exercise of their will, God allows them to experience the fullness of their evil choices: seared conscience, warped desire, self-destruction.

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.

Yes. I think all of this ordering of events is so marvellous because God doesn't have to coercively enact His will in any of it. His omniscience and omnipotence are such that He sees His will done in the midst of our free choices. That's far, far beyond impressive, in my view.

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

???

I'm quite aware of how things transpired with Jacob and his family...

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.

Well, this is all interesting, I suppose. Thanks for the clarification of your view. By "compatabilism" what I mean is the more standard philosophical version that other Calvinists put forward.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair
Since you will not believe me when I claim what it is, perhaps you will listen to other sources that define "Compatibalism" as something different from HARD DETERMINISM or even FATALISM (as you seem to advocate).

I understand that you want people to accept your view of compatibilism as a biblical view but it is not.

Lets look at what you just posted:
Soft determinism, also known as compatibilism, is the belief that determinism is compatible with free will and moral responsibility.
In other words, soft determinism states that even though all events in the world are predetermined by what came before them, it is still possible for people to have free will and thus be morally responsible for their actions.
Soft determinism is one branch of determinism. Determinism is the idea that everything that happens could not have gone otherwise; each event has a fixed outcome because of everything that led to it.
American psychologist and philosopher William James first used the term soft determinism in his essay “The Dilemma of Determinism” (James, 1895).
Soft determinism is a branch of determinism that differs from hard determinism. These branches differ in their views on whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe. Soft determinists believe that free will is possible in a deterministic universe, even when everything is predetermined.
They believe that as long as no external forces force someone to make a certain choice, the person has made a free choice.

Just because you believe that it is possible does not make it possible.

We are not speaking of external physical forces but rather that God has predetermined all that will happen as we see in both the WCF & LBCF. If you claim that in your compatibilistic view man has a free will then you must also say that man can override the will and decrees of God.

“Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism.” [Calvinist {John Hendryx, How can God be Sovereign and Man still be Free?}]

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,
nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; LBCF Chp 3 Par 1

Compatibilism (aka soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices occur through divine determinism (see Act_2:23 & Act_4:27-28). It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will. Our choices are only our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures. {Compatibilism is no less deterministic than “hard” determinism. Calvinistic compatibilism proffers that two seemingly contrary ideas are both true: 1) that God has meticulously and exhaustively decreed what shall take place in history; and 2) that we freely do what God has decreed (some use the term foreordained) for us to do.} Compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most. The former view is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (Note: compatibilism denies that the will is free to choose otherwise, that is, free from the bondage of the corruption nature,for the unregenerate, and denies that the will is free from God's eternal decreee.)

Compatibilism | Monergism

Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In

www.monergism.com

Immanuel Kant in Critique of Practical Reason writes:
“Compatibilism is a wretched subterfuge with which some persons still let themselves be put off, and so think they have solved lives problems with petty word-jugglery.”

Dr. William James in The Dilemma of Determinism writes:
“Compatibilism is a quagmire of evasion. The Compatibilists strategy relies upon stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism. They make a pretense of restoring the caged bird to liberty with one hand, while with the other they anxiously tie a string to its leg to make sure it can’t get beyond determinism’s grasp.”

Compatibilism contends that a person can act freely even though that action is determined by God.

Determinism and free will are not compatible. You can believe in determinism or free will, but not both. It is logically impossible to force someone to freely do something. Theologically, the loss of free will has a devastating impact of how we view God.
Compatiblism does not, can not equate in any way to free will. Compatiblism is a programmed desire.

You have the power of contrary choice [free will] when it comes to accepting compatibilism or not. I have never known a compatibilist who did not face decisions as if he had libertarian freedom. Compatibilism is ultimately unlivable. As Richard Dawkins (an atheist compatibilist) says, though we don't have free choices we have to live consistent with the illusion that we do.

Compatibilism is still determinism
It simply means that free will is supposedly “compatible” with determinism. So it is still true that God predetermined everything, including every sin that would ever be committed in such a way that those sins could not have possibly been avoided. Appeals to compatibilism do nothing to solve the difficulty, since in compatibilism the will is still controlled by God. All compatibilism does is redefine free will so that it means the freedom to do what we want or desire. But since our wants and desires are still controlled by God (even according to compatibilism), it doesn’t solve anything. The will is still completely determined by desires that the person has no control over.

Compatibilism solves nothing. It makes free will “compatible” with determinism by redefining “free will” in a deterministic sense. In the end, compatibilism means only that determinism is compatible with determinism.

@atpollard as much as you would like compatibilism to get you off the hook it does not work.

 

[atpollard]

What are your scare quotes implying?

Let us discuss it.
You had originally made THIS statement to which I was responding.

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...

Does this statement (from you) not imply that compatibalism (as you understand it) consists of God forcing men to desire that which they desire to do?

I disagreed with your definition of compatibalism. I offered as an example of compatibalism revealed in the Bible - to serve as a true definition of compatibalism - the story of Joseph and his brothers. Here is my post presented up to the scare quotes in question.

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 the reference to Genesis 37.
Q. What happened (events) in Genesis chapter 37?
A. That is where Joseph's brothers attacked him and sold Joseph into slavery.

Genesis 37:18-20 [ESV] They saw him from afar, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him. They said to one another, "Here comes this dreamer. Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits. Then we will say that a fierce animal has devoured him, and we will see what will become of his dreams."

It is my opinion that their words, proposed deeds and ultimate actual deeds indicate that the brothers HATED Joseph. Taking this as a GIVEN FACT: the brothers hated Joseph, then let us apply possible definitions of compatibalism.

Your definition of compatibalism would require that the brothers hated Joseph because "those desires are ultimately ordained by God" [a direct quote from your post].

My definition of compatibalism posits that the brothers hated Joseph because that is what they wanted to do with their Free Will.

Now to the "scare quotes" [a direct quote of your term] and my rhetorical question. "made" is a paraphrase summation of your argument for how compatibalism works ... a shorthand summary of "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."

However, it was part of a rhetorical question since I immediately answered the very question that I just made with "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." ... which was a paraphrase summary of Genesis 29-37.

Thus to the original question, which was the definition of compatibalism, we have an example of FREE WILL (not compelled by God) yet fully advancing the GRAND PLAN OF GOD to provide for Israel in Slavery in Egypt so that God can send MOSES to deliver then via the PASSOVER LAMB and foreshadow the glory of the SON OF GOD yet to come. God did not 'program' wants, God merely restrained excessive evil [like killing Joseph] that would derail His Plan and provided convenient cooperation to our wants along the way (like a slave caravan that happened to be heading to Egypt at a fortuitous moment). No FREE WILL was violated in the making of God's Plan.

 

[Tenchi]

Your definition of compatibalism would require that the brothers hated Joseph because "those desires are ultimately ordained by God" [a direct quote from your post].

My definition of compatibalism posits that the brothers hated Joseph because that is what they wanted to do with their Free Will.

I know of no common definition of compatibilism that essentially grants genuine freedom of the will to human beings, as your definition appears to do. The compatibilism I normally encounter is that which proposes that God instills in human beings their essential nature out of which their desires form and then they "freely" act in manifestation of those desires. This is just hard determinism cloaked under a layer of language that gives the impression of genuine free agency in human beings.

My definition of compatibalism posits that the brothers hated Joseph because that is what they wanted to do with their Free Will.

Well, as Silverhair has pointed out, it is impossible for the theistic determinism of Calvinism to be true and genuine free agency to exist also. And calling this contradiction a "mystery," as many Calvinists do, is a facile deflection from this fact. You've made some interesting contortions in order to form your own version of compatibilism from the text of Scripture but all it seems to me that you've done is simply use "compatibilism" as a referent for the "mysterious" contradiction of divine sovereignty (aka theistic determinism) existing in tandem with human free agency.

You wrote:

"...we have an example of FREE WILL (not compelled by God) yet fully advancing the GRAND PLAN OF GOD..."

"God did not 'program' wants, God merely restrained excessive evil [like killing Joseph] that would derail His plan and provided convenient cooperation to our wants along the way (like a slave caravan that happened to be heading to Egypt at a fortuitous moment]. No FREE WILL was violated in the making of God's Plan."

You certainly took the long way 'round to these statements.

Anyway, from what I can tell, you just subscribe to the typical Calvinist antinomy between divine sovreignty and human free will. You don't call it a mystery, as many Calvinists do, but, confusingly, call it compatibilism. Okay. Strange, but as you like.

 

[atpollard]

Well, as Silverhair has pointed out, it is impossible for the theistic determinism of Calvinism to be true and genuine free agency to exist also.

I was born into an Atheist family, embraced Nihilism when I joined a Gang and became a drug smuggler and arsonist, and accepted Christ when he appeared "road to Damascus" style and informed me that effective immediately, I belonged to him. What I know of THEOLOGY came from reconciling my empirical salvation experience to the Wesleyan Holiness preaching at the Church that happened to be closest to my house (before I knew that there was a difference between denominations) and what I was reading in the RSV bible that someone had given me when I visited a Lutheran Minister to ask questions about God after encountering "the problem of evil" at 8 years old and ultimately choosing "Nihilism" as the best solution.

Which is just a long-winded way of saying that I am a TULIP believing MONERGIST for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the writings of John Calvin, they are based on the writings of John and Paul and my empirical experiences. So I am indifferent to the "theistic determinism of Calvinism" and embrace the SOVEREIGNTY of GOD (confirmed by both Scripture and Life) and the existence of a Free but Fallen Will (also confirmed by both Scripture and Life).

I reject the concept of a LIBERTARIAN Free Will (contrary to both Scripture and Life).

So what is "genuine free agency"? as YOU define it and as it is applied to the Story of Joseph?
How is that reconciled with the fact that Jesus must be the Passover Lamb, so there MUST be a Passover, so there must be Slavery for God to deliver Israel from, so Joseph and Israel MUST go to Egypt in order for the WORLD to understand the work of Christ?

It is easy to tell me that I am WRONG because Calvin was wrong [which seems irrelevant to me], but can you tell me what is CORRECT?

 

[Tenchi]

Which is just a long-winded way of saying that I am a TULIP believing MONERGIST for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the writings of John Calvin, they are based on the writings of John and Paul and my empirical experiences. So I am indifferent to the "theistic determinism of Calvinism" and embrace the SOVEREIGNTY of GOD (confirmed by both Scripture and Life) and the existence of a Free but Fallen Will (also confirmed by both Scripture and Life).

Okay. I doubt, without help from the Calvinist systematic, that you'd have ever adopted the TULIP doctrines, or think of God's dealing with people in Scripture in monergistic terms, if not for Augustine, Calvin, etc. I was a Calvinist for over two decades but eventually found soteriological systematics that much better described, biblically and philosophically, the interplay of divine sovereignty and human free agency than did Calvinism/Reform theology.

www.evangelicalarminians.org - Arminianism
www.soteriology101.com - Provisionism
www.reasonablefaith.org - Molinism

I consider the experience of a believer valuable spiritually only insofar as it well-corresponds to God's word. I don't see, though, that my own experience or that of many others I know bears out a Calvinist construction of Scripture. Far from it. Instead, I find Calvinism distorts God's word, denies common human experience and dissolves individual responsibility.

I reject the concept of a LIBERTARIAN Free Will (contrary to both Scripture and Life).

I don't subscribe to hard libertarianism. But I do think a softer version of libertarianism that doesn't propose radical human autonomy but doesn't eradicate human free agency, either, makes far better sense than Calvinism's theistic determinism. A soft libertarian perspective corresponds very well to both God's word and common human experience, in my view.

So what is "genuine free agency"? as YOU define it and as it is applied to the Story of Joseph?

I think there are instances where we have the real ability to refrain or not to refrain from a given moral action. As I make choices along a certain line, however, my freedom to make other choices grows increasingly constrained, the momentum of my choices eventually overpowering my capacity to make different choices on that line. This is evident in instances of addiction. It's what is demonstrated in the formation of habits and living patterns among human beings. It's what the Bible talks about concerning "hardening." My personality and circumstance also impinge on my decision-making, of course, but not to the extent determinism asserts where nothing that I do is ever freely chosen (which is to say, I could genuinely have chosen otherwise). In any case, I think there are points at which I have the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not to refrain from a given moral action.

Do I see this sort of freedom at work in the story of Joseph and his brothers? Yes. I think it's quite obvious, actually, in the complete absence of any clearly deterministic language in the story. Instead, we read of Reuben opposing the will of his brethren, not God imposing His will upon the bunch of them. We read of a caravan serendipitously passing by without anything in the story indicating God's sovereign ordination of the event. The brothers deceive their father with a bloody cloak, no description of divine intervention aiding the deception. And so on. As far as I can see, a natural, straightforward reading of the story would never produce the Calvinistic version of it. Instead, the story, by its language, seems to me to just take human free agency as a "brute given."

Yes, God was working to bring about good things from the evil actions of Joseph's brethren, as the story tells us, but nothing in the story ever suggests God did this by meticulous ordination of everything. God's sovereignty is greater than that proposed by the Calvinist; He accomplishes His will just as He desires in the midst of the free choices of His creatures rather than needing to ordain everything in order to ensure His will is done.

https://soteriology101.com/2016/07/20/the-doctrine-of-free-will/

Read Kenneth Keathley's book, "Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach." I agree very much with his description of "soft libertarianism" (which one might call "soft compatibilism").

 

[Silverhair]

@atpollard you keep asking where is free agency regarding the Story of Joseph, the cross etc. Are you suggesting that in all those that man was nothing but the agent of God and did exactly as He had determined for them to do?

God is omniscient and foreknows all that man will freely do. The only other option is that God has determined all that man will do and thus it makes God the ultimate source of evil and sin.

Compatabilism is not wrong because of Calvin it is wrong because of what it does to the character of God.

As I see it the error of compatibilism can be traced back to the errant view of "original sin".

Where do you find in these verses that man lost his free will?

Gen 3:17 And to Adam He said: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat, cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
Gen 3:18 Both thorns and thistles it will yield for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, until you return to the ground—because out of it were you taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”

Being separated from God spiritually by sin does not mean they are unable to respond to information presented to them.

 

[atpollard]

@atpollard you keep asking where is free agency regarding the Story of Joseph, the cross etc. Are you suggesting that in all those that man was nothing but the agent of God and did exactly as He had determined for them to do?

No I kept asking for YOUR reconciliation of FREE WILL with God's SOVEREIGN PLAN.
I UNDERSTAND that you reject my reconciliation.

So what is "genuine free agency"? as YOU define it and as it is applied to the Story of Joseph?
How is that reconciled with the fact that Jesus must be the Passover Lamb, so there MUST be a Passover, so there must be Slavery for God to deliver Israel from, so Joseph and Israel MUST go to Egypt in order for the WORLD to understand the work of Christ?

I have stopped asking and listening for an answer and I have moved on with life.
You called me out by name, so I thought your post deserved a response.
Enjoy your life as I move on and enjoy mine.

 

[Silverhair]

No I kept asking for YOUR reconciliation of FREE WILL with God's SOVEREIGN PLAN.
I UNDERSTAND that you reject my reconciliation.



I have stopped asking and listening for an answer and I have moved on with life.
You called me out by name, so I thought your post deserved a response.
Enjoy your life as I move on and enjoy mine.

I did answer you, but you must have missed it. So here it is again

God is omniscient and foreknows all that man will freely do.

God does not need to control what man will do, He is fully capable of carrying out His plan even through sinful man.

@Tenchi did a good job of explaining how God can do that so I see not need to plow the same ground twice.

The existence of moral evil in our world obliges compatibilists to explain how sin could be compatible with the works of a holy God.

Compatibilists (C/R) attempt to maintain that men are free in the sense that they are “doing what they desire.” However, this fails to provide a sufficient explanation to maintain any sense of true freedom considering that compatibilists also affirm that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.

https://soteriology101.com/2014/12/01/why-the-theory-of-compatibilism-falls-short/

How do you make those two opposing views work when even the persons desire is derived from and determined by the desire of God?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Job, Noah, Enoch, Daniel, David and Cornelius

These Saints were all Born Again, by the New Birth from the Holy Spirit.

This is all obfuscation, an attempt by way of many words, to obscure the fact that you have no actual solid rebuttal to the presence of the conditional term "if" in Hebrews 3:7 that clearly implies that the hearer has a choice to make - and thus responsibility for that choice.

I think you missed a few verses where God Explains How He Saves souls,
not where you think that Salvation that is not of the flesh, not of man that wills it, is of man that wills it, in their flesh(?)

Oh, brother.
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gracelist.html
The DOCTRINES OF GRACE in The Old Testament and the New Testament;

"God is Sovereign Exo 15:18; 1Chr 29:11-12; 2Chr 20:6; Psa 22:28

1. He exercises that sovereignty in actively ordaining everything
2. Deu 32:39; 1Sam 2:6-8; Job 9:12; Job 12:6-10; Psa 33:11; Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6; Isa 14:24; Isa 45:7; Act 15:18; Eph 1:11
   • Including matters of “chance”
   • Pro 16:33; 1Ki 22:20, 34, 37
   • The wicked actions of men
   • Gen 45:5; Gen 50:20; Exo 4:21; Jdg 14:1-4; Psa 76:10; Pro 16:4; Isa 44:28; Amos 3:6; Act 2:22-23; Act 4:27-28
   • The actions of evil spirits
   • 1Sam 16:14-16; 1Ki 22:19-23; 1Chr 21:1/2Sam 24:1
   • The good actions of men
   • John 15:16; Eph 2:10; Phi 2:12-13
   • The actions of good angels
   • Psa 103:20; Psa 104:4
   • The actions of animals
   • Num 22:28; 1Ki 17:4; Psa 29:9; Jer 8:7; Eze 32:4; Dan 6:22
   • The operations of all creation
   • Gen 8:22; Psa 104:5-10; Psa 104:13-14; Psa 104:19-20; Mark 4:39.
3. Man is not permitted to question his sovereign acts
4. Job 33:12-13; Isa 29:16; Isa 45:9-10; Mat 20:1-16; Rom 9:19-24

"God Elects [i.e. Chooses, Predestines, Foreordains]:

1. His angels
2. 1Tim 5:21
3. His peculiar people, Israel
4. Exo 6:7; Deu 7:6-8; Deu 10:14-15; Psa 33:12; Isa 43:20-21
5. Individuals to salvation
6. Psa 65:4; Mat 24:24; John 6:37; John 15:16; Act 13:48; Rom 8:28-30; Rom 9:10-24; Rom 11:5-7; Eph 1:3-6; Eph 1:11-12; 1The 1:4; 1The 5:9; 2The 2:13-14
7. Individuals to condemnation
8. Exo 4:21; Rom 9:13; Rom 9:17-18; Rom 9:21-22; 1Pet 2:8

"God's Motivation in Election

1. His own good pleasure
2. Eph 1:5; 2Tim 1:9
3. The display of his glory
4. Isa 43:6-7; Rom 9:22-24; 1Cor 1:27-31; Eph 2:4-7; Pro 16:4
5. His special love
6. Deu 7:6-8; 2The 2:13
7. His foreknowledge
8. Rom 8:29; 1Pet 1:2
   • Which means his special love
   • Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2; Mat 7:22-23; 1Cor 8:3; 2Tim 2:19; 1Pet 1:20
   • But not:
   • Any good [nobility, wisdom, power, choice, seeking] he foresees in anyone Deu 7:7; Rom 9:11-13; Rom 9:16; Rom 10:20; 1Cor 1:27-29; 1Cor 4:7; 2Tim 1:9

"Total Depravity of Man is where all men are constituted as sinners by their relationship with Adam
Psa 51:5; Psa 58:3; Rom 5:18-19

Naturally born man is therefore unable:

1. To do anything good
2. Gen 6:5; Job 15:14-16; Psa 130:3; Psa 143:2; Pro 20:9; Ecc 7:20; Isa 64:6; Jer 13:23; John 3:19; Rom 3:9-12; Jam 3:8; 1John 1:8
   
   • To believe in God (or come to him)
   John 6:44; John 6:65; John 8:43-45; John 10:26; John 12:37-41
   
   • To understand the truth
   John 14:17; 1Cor 2:14
   
   • To seek God
   Rom 3:10-11

"He is dead in sins Gen 2:16-17; John 3:5-7; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13 He is blinded and corrupt in his heart Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Ecc 9:3; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19-21; Rom 8:7-8; Eph 4:17-19; Eph 5:8 He is captive to sin and Satan John 8:34; John 8:44; Rom 6:20; 2Tim 2:25-26; Tit 3:3; 1John 5:19 He performs actions freely according to his nature, but his nature is wholly evil Job 14:4; Mat 7:16-18; Mat 12:33; Mark 7:21-23; Jam 1:13-14."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

​

"It is unequivocally clear from the Words of Christ in the above text and context that there is a people for whom He did not and would not Pray.

"Speaking of His Redemptive Blood, Christ said:
Jesus Blood, "...is Shed for many for the Remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28).

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

John 3:16-17
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

"1. God Purposed to Redeem a certain people and not others;

"1Ch 17:20-21 O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to Redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast Redeemed out of Egypt?

"Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are Chosen.

"1Pe 2:8-9 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


"A) It is for these in particular that Christ Gave His Life

"Is 53:10-11 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

"Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

"Joh 6:35-40 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you,

"That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

"Joh 10:3-4 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice....

"Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep....

"Joh 10:14-15 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

"Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

"Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [we are commanded to love our wives in the same way that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it; therefore, if Christ loved and gave himself for all people in the same way, we are commanded to love all women in the same way that we love our wives]

"Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

"Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

"B) It is for these in particular that Christ Intercedes:

"Joh 17:1-2 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

"Joh 17:6-12 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

"Joh 17:20-21 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

"Joh 17:24-26 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

"Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

"C) The people for whom Christ Intercedes are the same as the people
for whom He Offered Himself up as a Sacrifice;

"Heb 7:24-27 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

"Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. [note context, in which entering into the holy place is explicitly for the purpose of intercession]

"Heb 9:24-28 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

"[For a fuller understanding of the indissoluble connection between sacrifice and intercession, read Hebrews chapters 7-10]"

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

​

"It is unequivocally clear from the Words of Christ in the above text and context that there is a people for whom He did not and would not Pray.

"Speaking of His Redemptive Blood, Christ said:
Jesus Blood, "...is Shed for many for the Remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28).

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

John 3:16-17
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

"1. God purposed to Redeem a certain people and not others;

"1Ch 17:20-21 O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to Redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast Redeemed out of Egypt?

"Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are hosen.

"1Pe 2:8-9 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


"A) It is for these in particular that Christ Gave His Life

"Is 53:10-11 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

"Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

"Joh 6:35-40 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

"Joh 10:3-4 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice....

"Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep....

"Joh 10:14-15 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

"Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

"Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [we are commanded to love our wives in the same way that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it; therefore, if Christ loved and gave himself for all people in the same way, we are commanded to love all women in the same way that we love our wives]

"Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

"Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

"B) It is for these in particular that Christ Intercedes:

"Joh 17:1-2 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

"Joh 17:6-12 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

"Joh 17:20-21 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

"Joh 17:24-26 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

"Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

"C) The people for whom Christ intercedes are the same as the people for whom he offered himself up as a sacrifice

"Heb 7:24-27 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

"Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. [note context, in which entering into the holy place is explicitly for the purpose of intercession]

"Heb 9:24-28 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

"[For a fuller understanding of the indissoluble connection between sacrifice and intercession, read Hebrews chapters 7-10]"

New thread: The Blood Atonement of Christ is Effective; for whom God Purposed to Redeem.

 

[Tenchi]

I think you missed a few verses where God Explains How He Saves souls,
not where you think that Salvation that is not of the flesh, not of man that wills it, is of man that wills it, in their flesh(?)

Oh, brother.
DOCTRINES OF GRACE – CATEGORIZED SCRIPTURE LIST
The DOCTRINES OF GRACE in The Old Testament and the New Testament;

"God is Sovereign Exo 15:18; 1Chr 29:11-12; 2Chr 20:6; Psa 22:28

1. He exercises that sovereignty in actively ordaining everything
2. Deu 32:39; 1Sam 2:6-8; Job 9:12; Job 12:6-10; Psa 33:11; Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6; Isa 14:24; Isa 45:7; Act 15:18; Eph 1:11
   • Including matters of “chance”
   • Pro 16:33; 1Ki 22:20, 34, 37
   • The wicked actions of men
   • Gen 45:5; Gen 50:20; Exo 4:21; Jdg 14:1-4; Psa 76:10; Pro 16:4; Isa 44:28; Amos 3:6; Act 2:22-23; Act 4:27-28
   • The actions of evil spirits
   • 1Sam 16:14-16; 1Ki 22:19-23; 1Chr 21:1/2Sam 24:1
   • The good actions of men
   • John 15:16; Eph 2:10; Phi 2:12-13
   • The actions of good angels
   • Psa 103:20; Psa 104:4
   • The actions of animals
   • Num 22:28; 1Ki 17:4; Psa 29:9; Jer 8:7; Eze 32:4; Dan 6:22
   • The operations of all creation
   • Gen 8:22; Psa 104:5-10; Psa 104:13-14; Psa 104:19-20; Mark 4:39.
3. Man is not permitted to question his sovereign acts
4. Job 33:12-13; Isa 29:16; Isa 45:9-10; Mat 20:1-16; Rom 9:19-24

"God Elects [i.e. Chooses, Predestines, Foreordains]:

1. His angels
2. 1Tim 5:21
3. His peculiar people, Israel
4. Exo 6:7; Deu 7:6-8; Deu 10:14-15; Psa 33:12; Isa 43:20-21
5. Individuals to salvation
6. Psa 65:4; Mat 24:24; John 6:37; John 15:16; Act 13:48; Rom 8:28-30; Rom 9:10-24; Rom 11:5-7; Eph 1:3-6; Eph 1:11-12; 1The 1:4; 1The 5:9; 2The 2:13-14
7. Individuals to condemnation
8. Exo 4:21; Rom 9:13; Rom 9:17-18; Rom 9:21-22; 1Pet 2:8

"God's Motivation in Election

1. His own good pleasure
2. Eph 1:5; 2Tim 1:9
3. The display of his glory
4. Isa 43:6-7; Rom 9:22-24; 1Cor 1:27-31; Eph 2:4-7; Pro 16:4
5. His special love
6. Deu 7:6-8; 2The 2:13
7. His foreknowledge
8. Rom 8:29; 1Pet 1:2
   • Which means his special love
   • Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2; Mat 7:22-23; 1Cor 8:3; 2Tim 2:19; 1Pet 1:20
   • But not:
   • Any good [nobility, wisdom, power, choice, seeking] he foresees in anyone Deu 7:7; Rom 9:11-13; Rom 9:16; Rom 10:20; 1Cor 1:27-29; 1Cor 4:7; 2Tim 1:9

"Total Depravity of Man is where all men are constituted as sinners by their relationship with Adam
Psa 51:5; Psa 58:3; Rom 5:18-19

Naturally born man is therefore unable:

1. To do anything good
2. Gen 6:5; Job 15:14-16; Psa 130:3; Psa 143:2; Pro 20:9; Ecc 7:20; Isa 64:6; Jer 13:23; John 3:19; Rom 3:9-12; Jam 3:8; 1John 1:8
   
   • To believe in God (or come to him)
   John 6:44; John 6:65; John 8:43-45; John 10:26; John 12:37-41
   
   • To understand the truth
   John 14:17; 1Cor 2:14
   
   • To seek God
   Rom 3:10-11

"He is dead in sins Gen 2:16-17; John 3:5-7; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13 He is blinded and corrupt in his heart Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Ecc 9:3; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19-21; Rom 8:7-8; Eph 4:17-19; Eph 5:8 He is captive to sin and Satan John 8:34; John 8:44; Rom 6:20; 2Tim 2:25-26; Tit 3:3; 1John 5:19 He performs actions freely according to his nature, but his nature is wholly evil Job 14:4; Mat 7:16-18; Mat 12:33; Mark 7:21-23; Jam 1:13-14."

This is the tactic called "Throwing the Elephant." It's a rotten argument maneuver where a person cuts-and-pastes a huge ream of information to which their opponent cannot possibly fully respond. It would take an enormous amount of time to do so - far, far more time than it took to cut-and-paste the ream of info., which is exactly why the maneuver is employed.

Here's my response to your lousy cut-and-paste tactic:

www.evangelicalarminians.org - Arminianism

www.reasonablefaith.org - Molinism

www.soteriology101.com

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

argument maneuver where a person cuts-and-pastes a huge ream of information to which their opponent cannot possibly fully respond. It would take an enormous amount of time to do so - far, far more time than it took to cut-and-paste the ream of info., which is exactly why the maneuver is employed

No, you can't respond to that cut and paste job of 93.4% Scriptures. We know that.

Metephorically speaking, Christ died for His sheep and for His wheat. Realistically speaking, Christ died for His "many sons".

Goats never become sheep, tares never become wheat, and the children of the devil never become the children of God (John 8:44; 10:11; Heb. 2:10).

Christ said to the self salvationists of His day:
"Ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep" (John 10:26).

They were perfectly content with their supposed scheme of redemption, and Christ knowing the irreconcilable and absolute depravity of their hearts said unto them:
"Ye will not come to Me that ye might have life" (John 5:40).

THE UNRESTRICTIONISTS CHARGE GOD WITH JUDICIAL DISPARITY.

They who have cast off the restrictive character of Christ's atonement teach that Christ died for all the sins of all men, and at the same time own the truth that some people are already in hell and that others are going there daily.

This is not merely a glaring inconsistency on their part, but it is to charge the infinitely holy God with injustice. God does not exact payment for sin twice, once at the bleeding hand of His beloved Son, and then again at the hands of those for whom Christ paid the full ransom price.

God does not punish sin twice, once in Christ, and then again in the burning woes of hell: "Payment God cannot twice demand, first at my bleeding Surety's hand, and then again at mine" (Toplady).

All for whom Christ vicariously suffered are no longer under the condemning power of sin or the curse of the law (Romans 8:1), and Christ stands as their sin scarred and eternal Surety in the perjureless court of the just and almighty God.

The infinite counsel of God in the salvation of His elect has never been less than absolutely sure, and it is gross ignorance for man to try and arraign Omniscience before the bar of human reason.

God did not give His Son, in Whom He is eternally well pleased, to make salvation possible, nor even probable, nor did He give Him to put mankind in a redeemable state, but He gave Him to make salvation sure in the experience of all whom He had become Bondsman in the covenant of redemption (Hebrews 7:22).

It would be the ultimate violation of justice for God to exact payment for sin from a person whom God Himself had made Christ that person's sin bearer.

God does not exact Double Jeopardy.
Perish the thought!