Calvinism and Open Theism are strange bedfellows?

[AresMan]

Here is my assessment of free-will:

Say someone is choosing an ice cream flavor and have to choose between pistachio and chocolate. Thy choose pistachio. So why did they not choose chocolate. Maybe they're allergic to it and eating it causes an adverse physical reaction and humans are set up physiologically to avoid adverse reactions such as pain. So they have no choice based on their past experience but to choose pistachio.

But say they just don't like the taste of chocolate. Maybe once again it just comes down to their chemical makeup - something in them that makes them not enjoy the taste. Certainly the vast majority of humans enjoy chocolate, but not 100% - some small percentage just don't like the taste, has to be directly correlated to their physical makeup. So even in this case, their choice was dictated by a deterministic factor over which this person had no control.

But say that its not either of the above factors. Say the person had a beloved dog who died recently from eating chocolate, and every time the person sees chocolate it brings up unpleasant memories, so they just naturally choose something else. The person didn't have control over their dog dying, or they didn't choose it anyway. So once again the person's choice against chocolate was due to factors outside of their control.

But say there's a girl behind him, and the reason he doesn't want to choose chocolate is that he knows she like's chocolate as well, and there's very little chocolate left, and he wants her to know that he let her have the last chocolate because he's interested in her. And his motivation here at a fundamental level is a powerful sex drive, predicated without his control on the perpetuation of the species. And also he has at his disposal a brain enabling him to make a series of if-then inferences that lead him to a desired goal of attracting the interest of this girl.

But say that his reason for not choosing chocolate was not related to any coherent reason at all that he or anyone else could even potentially identify. Say there was some truly random firing of some nueron in his brain causing
him to suddenly choose pistachio instead. Or maybe he somehow effectively flipped a coin in his mind consciously, maybe saying (on a whim) "if the next car that goes by outside is a coupe I'll choose chocolate, otherwise not."

So in assessing his so-called "free-will" decision to choose chocolate, we see that it boils down to one of two things: 1) the result of absolute determinstic factors over which the person has no control; or 2) pure randomness. So that is what "free-will" is.

Exactly. Libertarian free will (LFW) is totally illogical and cannot solve the problem of moral responsibility.

LFW argues that one can only be responsible for an action if, all things being what they are, he could have done otherwise. Although this seems perfectly reasonable, it is neither complete, nor realistic. Let's see how well that works in several examples:

1. You are tried in a court for murder and the evidence is overwhelming that you are guilty. You pulled the trigger on the gun! The judge is deliberating on a sentence based on your motivation for committing the act. If you pulled the trigger with an intention, then it cannot be said that you could have done "otherwise" in the same situation, because your same motivation could not have resulted in you not pulling the trigger. Your attorney attempts to tell the judge that you were not in your right mind, and therefore, there was no real intent in the act. You were under the influence of something, and therefore your action was essentially "random." In other words, you could have done otherwise. Therefore, he argues that you are not responsible for the action, and he tells you to plead insanity.

2. You are in a game show and you are offered a choice between two doors. You will walk through the door of your choice and receive whatever is beyond that door. You choose door #2 and proceed through it. You unexpectedly fall down a pit and onto a searing hot floor. You shout at the host and say "Hey, that is not fair!" The host says, "Why not? You could have chosen door #1. You are responsible for your choice because you could have chosen otherwise."

This is why neither hard determinism (robotic) nor libertarian free will correctly assign moral responsibility. Divine compatibilism is better because it says that the creature makes choices without coercion from outside, but that these choices must align with the creature's nature and his greatest internal desire. LFW necessarily argues that, although nature and greatest desire can "influence" choices, man can ultimately act contrary to anything internal, which is illogical. Upon what logical basis is such a choice made (the definition of insanity), and exactly how can such a choice be culpable? We are responsible precisely because we act according to our nature and greatest desire, and it is motivation and purpose in any act (the "reason") that makes an act morally subject.

 

[Skandelon]

The problem with the simple Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge (EDF) of the Arminian view of free will is that it presents a form of catch-22 (or "cyclical redundancy error" ). It results in a two-way reverse determinism: all things are ultimately determined, but the future, contingent acts of creatures determined "backwards" the knowledge of the Creator. It logically makes no sense.

Oh, but the Trinity, the eternal existence of God and infinite attributes as they relate to finite creatures DOES make logical sense? Really?

Using only logical reasoning explain to me how God came to choose to save you? How does God come to make any choice for that matter? How does God originate a new thought or idea? I mean, doesn't He already always know everything? If so, what does a choice among available options even look like to an infinite being who perfectly knows what will happen before He chooses for it to happen? Can you really logically explain such matters? I don't think so. Thus, I recommend not drawing conclusions that scriptures don't draw regarding what God has or has not pre-determined.

Calvinism and Open Theism deal with the logical implications of the Creator-creation relationship and the knowledge of God.

And they both contradict direct revelations from scripture.

Calvinism says that God knows the future because He has ultimately decreed it. Thus, the logical cause-effect relationship (one-way determinism) is allowed to flourish. There is no need for an apology for a logical backwards effect post-determining the cause.

Open Theism says that man has a libertarian free will, and that this necessarily implies that God cannot know with 100% certainty the future contingent acts of the creatures. If God knows them with certainty, they will happen unalterably. If they must happen, the creature does not have a free will and cannot be morally responsible.

Right, and the bible leaves a healthy level of mystery between the two requiring us to trust Him in faith and not to contradict his revelation by either suggesting that he predetermined/caused sin when we know he doesn't even tempt men to sin; or suggesting God doesn't know the actual future. Both should be rejected.

 

[Skandelon]

Exactly. Libertarian free will (LFW) is totally illogical and cannot solve the problem of moral responsibility.

LFW argues that one can only be responsible for an action if, all things being what they are, he could have done otherwise.

I think a better, more complete understanding is this:

"A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

So, take the last time you lied. Was that act an expression of your categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action? Or were you prevented in some way from willingly refraining from lying?

Divine compatibilism is better because it says that the creature makes choices without coercion from outside, but that these choices must align with the creature's nature and his greatest internal desire.

Yet, you fail to tell us who or what determined 'the creature's nature and his greatest internal desire?' Why? Because that answer reveals that you have only moved the difficulty of the hard deterministic conclusions that are attempting to be avoided back one step. The problem still remains and the questions posed to the hard determinists still apply to your view and yet remained unanswered.

LFW necessarily argues that, although nature and greatest desire can "influence" choices, man can ultimately act contrary to anything internal, which is illogical.

Where do we say that man can act contrary to anything internal? We believe that men make the determination autonomously, which as you said does allow for outside influence. But nothing I'm aware of says we are acting contrary to ourselves. The cause of an act is the actor. The cause of a choice is the chooser. The cause of a determination is the determiner. And any effort to define or explain this process on the basis of 'what determined the choice to be what it was' is just a game of question begging because it presumes a deterministic response is necessary.

We are responsible precisely because we act according to our nature and greatest desire, and it is motivation and purpose in any act (the "reason") that makes an act morally subject.

Then by that standard God should likewise hold animals to morally account for their instinctive choices. After all they are acting according to their inborn nature and greatest desire, right? Why does a lion always choose steak over a salad when given both options? Because he was made with that instinct, same reason a man chooses to lie instead of tell the truth when presented with the preselect outward stimuli. You have reduced the morally culpability of human agents to the equivalent of animal instinct.

 

[Van]

Reply to AresMan,

Calvinism and Open Theism deal with the logical implications of the Creator-creation relationship and the knowledge of God.

No Calvinism avoids the logical necessity of God being the author of sin if everything is predetermined, caused, by God.

Calvinism says that God knows the future because He has ultimately decreed it. Thus, the logical cause-effect relationship (one-way determinism) is allowed to flourish. There is no need for an apology for a logical backwards effect post-determining the cause.

Very true, Hyper-Calvinists do not make apology for God causing each and every murder and rape.

Open Theism says that man has a libertarian free will, and that this necessarily implies that God cannot know with 100% certainty the future contingent acts of the creatures. If God knows them with certainty, they will happen unalterably. If they must happen, the creature does not have a free will and cannot be morally responsible.

Yes, that is the problem of Closed Theism that is being addressed by saying God is not the author of sin.

As a monergist, I respect the open theists for dealing with the logical implications of the Arminian view of EDF. Of course, in their zeal to hold to libertarian free will, they reduce God to One Who can make mistakes and is less than totally trustworthy.

First those who reject closed theism are rejecting both views, Calvinism's everything is predestined and Arminianism's view that knowing the future does not predetermine it.

To reject Closed Theism does not require acceptance of the premise God is not trustworthy. But it is true God's statements of coming judgment are tempered with mercy, so God can say "in forty more days, Nineveh will be overturned." But later relent and not bring the calamity. This does not make God untrustworthy or mistaken, but it does put on display His immutable attribute of justice tempered with mercy. Further, it is not necessary to demean God by saying He makes mistakes. His judgments are perfect with or without Him having mercy on those of His choosing.

 

[Van]

Divine compatibilism is better because it says that the creature makes choices without coercion from outside, but that these choices must align with the creature's nature and his greatest internal desire.

This is simply a rewrite of the meaning of choice to mean non choice. Instead of God predetermining the outcome of a choice, which makes it a non-choice because only one outcome is possible, compatibilism simply replaces God with the past, so we can only choose what our past dictates, and since we were conceived in iniquity, our fallen past dictates that we will always choose death and not life. Scripture, however, says God sets before us life or death and pleads with us to choose life. Therefore the premise that God or compatibilism dictates that we choose death and therefore have no choice, simply rewrites scripture as says God sets life before some, His elect, and death before others, but that is not what scripture actually says.

 

[AresMan]

I think a better, more complete understanding is this:

"A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

Sure, the fact that we make informed choices with "free moral agency" makes us morally culpable. However, when you try to remove any reasonable basis for the action performed, you are question begging and argue from an "appeal to mystery." Yet, this mystery is the mantra by which people try to argue autonomous libertarian free will.

So, take the last time you lied. Was that act an expression of your categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action? Or were you prevented in some way from willingly refraining from lying?

I lied, first of all, because I am a sinner by nature. However, because I did so willfully with purpose, and without outside coercion (no one put a gun to my head), I am culpable for it. I followed my greatest desire, because, if I did not, I would have been insane, which is the opposite of moral responsibility.

Yet, you fail to tell us who or what determined 'the creature's nature and his greatest internal desire?' Why? Because that answer reveals that you have only moved the difficulty of the hard deterministic conclusions that are attempting to be avoided back one step. The problem still remains and the questions posed to the hard determinists still apply to your view and yet remained unanswered.

The long answer is by "secondary causation," resting in the ultimate decree of God to bring glory to Himself for reasons that will remain a mystery to the creature.

The short answer is, of course, God. He created all things (Col 1:16-17; 1 John 1:1-3). He is the only One Who created anything ex nihilo. LFW essentially argues that God created a multitude of other creators who can create information ex nihilo. That contradicts the Scriptures that where "all things were made by Him" and "by Him all things consist (or hold together)." He "worketh all things after the counsel of His will."

God made man in His image. If you try to back port God's eternal knowledge from the determination of the creature, you argue that God and man make each other in their own image (a la process theology). According to Ephesians 2:9 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which he hath foreordained that we should walk in them."

Where do we say that man can act contrary to anything internal?

When you are forced to argue that man can choose contrary to his greatest desire (because, you know, he has to be freeeeeee!). If man can do that, what is the basis for the action performed?

We believe that men make the determination autonomously, which as you said does allow for outside influence.

If you argue that man can act autonomously from the decree of God, you make him a creator of something ex nihilo. Only God creates ex nihilo because He transcends creation. Since man is a part of the creation, he can only do things that utilize the creation (including things visible and invisible).

But nothing I'm aware of says we are acting contrary to ourselves.

If you argue that man can do something contrary to what defines him (his nature and greatest desire), he is acting contrary to himself. Yet, your whole premise for moral accountability is an illogical, unsubstantiable appeal to mystery, because you refuse to accept that the answer must lie in the decree of the Creator. If the creation can itself create ex nihilo, then you succumb to the pitfalls of process theology and run afoul of the kalam and transcendental arguments.

The cause of an act is the actor. The cause of a choice is the chooser. The cause of a determination is the determiner. And any effort to define or explain this process on the basis of 'what determined the choice to be what it was' is just a game of question begging because it presumes a deterministic response is necessary.

Your assertion of LFW and the mystery it requires is question-begging because you require that the creature of the Creator must have the same quality of being to create ex nihilo, AND that the transcendental argument for the existence of God must also be true.
God is the ultimate actor and determiner, and you have provided no logical basis for the creature to be able to determine in the same way as the transcendental One.
I put the "mystery" with God to Whom it properly belongs. You put the "mystery" with man. I then challenge you that you as man must be able to explain the mystery of action because you are man, and you have put the ball in man's court. I have not the duty, the capacity, or the right to explain the mystery of the will of God because God is the Creator and I am the creation. He is also ontologically separate from me.

Then by that standard God should likewise hold animals to morally account for their instinctive choices. After all they are acting according to their inborn nature and greatest desire, right?

Animals were not created in the image of God.
Animals do not have moral awareness.
Animals do not have God's commands.
Animals do not have a souls.
Animals do not have an eternal destiny.
God declared to us in His Word that we are morally responsible. He said nothing of animals.

Why does a lion always choose steak over a salad when given both options? Because he was made with that instinct, same reason a man chooses to lie instead of tell the truth when presented with the preselect outward stimuli.

Great analogy to human depravity in sin and the sovereign grace of God that regenerates willfully wicked natures into ones that seek after God.

You have reduced the morally culpability of human agents to the equivalent of animal instinct.

You have reduced the moral culpability of human agents to equivalent of randomness.

 

[Van]

Does the past dictate the future. Do we alway do what we want to do? Sure. But do we want to do now what we wanted to do in the past? No.
Say I am a soldier on a battlefield. I want to live. I do not want to get shot and suffer pain, mutilation and death. I am hiding behind a rock as bullets fly. My buddy says, lay down covering fire so I can get to a more protected position. Even though I do not normally take risks, in this instant of time, I pop up fire and then pop back down.
So the problem with capatibilism is not that we always do what we desire at the moment, the problem is its claim our desire of the moment cannot be other that what is dictated by the past. Fiddlesticks.

 

[Skandelon]

Sure, the fact that we make informed choices with "free moral agency" makes us morally culpable. However, when you try to remove any reasonable basis for the action performed,

But that is your accusation, not reality. I'm not removing any reasonable basis for the action performed. I believe the basis for an act is the actor, I just don't attempt to explain all the detailed intricacies of HOW an agent determines his choices because that is truly beyond our full view or comprehension. To do so is speculative at best. And as stated, any attempt to explain what determines the choice of a chooser begs the question by presuming a deterministic response is necessary or even possible.

I lied, first of all, because I am a sinner by nature. However, because I did so willfully with purpose, and without outside coercion (no one put a gun to my head), I am culpable for it. I followed my greatest desire, because, if I did not, I would have been insane, which is the opposite of moral responsibility.

But, as a believer, you have been given a new nature, right? So are you saying you didn't have the power/ability to resist the temptation to lie? Why or why not?

The long answer is by "secondary causation," resting in the ultimate decree of God to bring glory to Himself for reasons that will remain a mystery to the creature.

And now who is "appealing to mystery?" We both must do it eventually, I'm just saying to do it BEFORE contradicting divine revelation by suggesting God causes sin, when revelation clearly says otherwise. I don't believe adding in 'secondary causes' dismisses that problem. I seriously doubt James was thinking "God doesn't even tempt men to evil... but he does predetermined the temptation and the sin will happen through secondary causes..."

LFW essentially argues that God created a multitude of other creators who can create information ex nihilo.

Yes, we are created "in his image" and free to rebel and 'create' evil intent, yet He is sovereign enough to accomplish His ultimate purposes despite all those rebellious choices. He is amazing isn't He!

The alternative is God 'playing both sides of the chess board' so to speak where he creates even the evil intent of his creatures, the very evil he declares to hate.

I'll need to leave it there for now...

 

[Skandelon]

When you are forced to argue that man can choose contrary to his greatest desire

When did I argue that? I didn't. I argued that it is beyond our view and comprehension thus refused to attempt an answer. That is the mistake Calvinistic compatibilism makes. It answers a question based on mere speculation, human reasoning and philosophical foundations, not biblical revelation. You are fine to appeal to mystery in regard to how God makes His choices, but refuse to do in in regard to his morally accountable creatures, which leads you to err.

(because, you know, he has to be freeeeeee!)

No, its because its mysterious and beyond our full comprehension. Why draw a conclusion that is apparent contradiction to what we know based on mere speculation?

what is the basis for the action performed?

What is the basis for an act of God? Him. He chose to do it. Same thing... unless you want to claim that God isn't powerful enough to have created others with the ability to create or freely choose? Is that what you are saying?

If you argue that man can act autonomously from the decree of God

Whoa! When did I say that? I didn't. Please quote my actual words, like I'm doing for you. I'm saying it is God's decree for man to act autonomously, not that man acts autonomously from the decree of God...

If you argue that man can do something contrary to what defines him

Again, not my argument...

Yet, your whole premise for moral accountability is an illogical, unsubstantiable appeal to mystery, because you refuse to accept that the answer must lie in the decree of the Creator.

Incorrect. That statement begs the question by presuming it is not God's decree to create men with contra-causual free will.

If the creation can itself create ex nihilo, then you succumb to the pitfalls of process theology and run afoul of the kalam and transcendental arguments.

Only if one accepts the man-made finite logical constructs imposed upon the infinite omnipotently powerful God.

God is the ultimate actor and determiner

Correct. And He has created other actors and determiners, but is more than able to remain sovereign over it all. Now that is a wow factor, and mysterious indeed. How does he do it? IMHO, only a finite theologian wishing to systematize God, by crossing all the 't's and dotting all the 'i's, would suggest the only way for Him to do so is to 'play both sides of the chess board' by dictating every choice and move of every player. In fact, this approach reduces our discussion here to non-sense as God is debating himself through secondary causes; in that He is presumably causing you to believe and write what you view as truth through secondary causes in the same manner He is me. I wonder which hand of God will win as they conflict with themselves?

, and you have provided no logical basis

And there it is again. You act as if a 'logical' (as defined by the deterministic premise) response is necessary, thus begging the question once again. What is a 'mystery' if it never defies or confounds our finite human logic? The Triune nature of God comes to mind...

Animals were not created in the image of God.
Animals do not have moral awareness.
Animals do not have God's commands.
Animals do not have a souls.
Animals do not have an eternal destiny.

My point exactly. So why assume, as you appear to do, that human volition is tantamount to animal instinct by suggesting it is determined by nature (innate desire) which is determined by God in such a way that the choices couldn't have been otherwise when faced by predetermined circumstances/stimuli.

God declared to us in His Word that we are morally responsible. He said nothing of animals.

So, while both animals and men act according to our innate desires in light of our predetermined circumstances, the only reason men are held to account is because God decided to hold us accountable for our reflective pre-determined responses, but not them?

 

[AresMan]

But that is your accusation, not reality. I'm not removing any reasonable basis for the action performed. I believe the basis for an act is the actor, I just don't attempt to explain all the detailed intricacies of HOW an agent determines his choices because that is truly beyond our full view or comprehension. To do so is speculative at best.

Yet, you argue that the "mystery" of the human will lies with the human. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for the human to understand the rationale of this autonomous nature of contra-causal choice. If ultimate moral execution can result from man understanding this intrinsic mystery so as to control choices for the greatest possible good, I would say that understanding the mystery of the human will by the human is not only good but necessary.

If not, then either of the following is true:
1. No one can answer this because no one knows it. It is a mystery even to God.
2. God can answer it, because as the omniscient Creator of the human, He knows all the components He put into that human. Hmm.

And as stated, any attempt to explain what determines the choice of a chooser begs the question by presuming a deterministic response is necessary or even possible.

If no form of determinism is necessary, your indeterminism essentially begs the question.
If no form of determinism is possible, then everything is essentially random.

But, as a believer, you have been given a new nature, right? So are you saying you didn't have the power/ability to resist the temptation to lie? Why or why not?

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Yet, we are responsible for all evil that we do!

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Yet, we are responsible for all evil that we do!

1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Yet, we are responsible for all evil that we do!

It is clear that we are, by nature, wicked and evil, according to the Bible.
It is clear that we are morally responsible before God for all evil that we do.
It is also clear that we cannot live sinless lives.


Let me turn the tables on your question. If you believe that we have LFW, that the "sin nature" is only an "influence" in our lives, and that moral responsibility requires the real ability to choose otherwise, then why cannot we simply choose to live sinlessly perfect? In fact, if you are going to argue that a command from God requires that we have the autonomous capacity to carry it out, do we have the ability to obey Matthew 5:48? If so, how do you reconcile that view with the Scripture passages I quoted above? If not, how are we morally responsible?

And now who is "appealing to mystery?" We both must do it eventually,

Of course. However, my appeal to mystery is logical because I argue the logical compatibilist solution to the apparent paradox and relegate the "mystery" to the infinite, transcendent Creator, NOT the sinful, finite created. This is where the mystery belongs.
Your appeal to mystery is that of a human vacuum, which puts the burden of proof on you to solve the mystery of man from the standpoint of man for the sake of moral responsibility. Good luck with that.

I'm just saying to do it BEFORE contradicting divine revelation by suggesting God causes sin, when revelation clearly says otherwise.

I don't believe adding in 'secondary causes' dismisses that problem. I seriously doubt James was thinking "God doesn't even tempt men to evil... but he does predetermined the temptation and the sin will happen through secondary causes..."

Gen 45:7 And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.
Gen 45:8 So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.

Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Say what?! Joseph credits God with being the One Who "sent" Joseph to Egypt, when we know that his brothers committed the evil of selling him into slavery.

Mar 12:6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mar 12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
Mar 12:8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
Mar 12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Mar 12:11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

The greatest sin in all history is the willful murder of the Son of God. Yet, this was prophesied. In fact, it is clear from the Scriptures that it was God's predetermined plan to orchestrate the death of Christ. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world! Yet, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins! Our very salvation is dependent on God decreeing the death of the atonement.
Compatibilism is necessary to understand that the determination of the evil actions of man is compatible with the righteous intentions of God. The reason that God is not "responsible" for evil is because:
1. He is God and we are not.
2. There is no transcendent standard to which one could justly hold God accountable.
3. We do our evil actions for evil intentions. God decrees that the same actions occur, but for good reasons according to the mystery in the counsel of His will.

 

[AresMan]

Yes, we are created "in his image" and free to rebel and 'create' evil intent, yet He is sovereign enough to accomplish His ultimate purposes despite all those rebellious choices. He is amazing isn't He!

Yes, He is amazing in that He can even decree our evil actions for His ultimate good, just like He did the crucifixion of Christ, the selling of Joseph into Egypt, and the actions of the Assyrian king, among others.

If anything can happen outside the ultimate decree of God, and this is part of God's eternal knowledge, then God and man both create each other in their own image. Ridiculous! I reject process theology, and you should too.

The alternative is God 'playing both sides of the chess board' so to speak where he creates even the evil intent of his creatures, the very evil he declares to hate.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
James did NOT say that God knows all contingent possibilities for His works. He said that God knows all his works. In other words, He knows all things that He actually will do. Some of these are in response to man's actions. If man's actions are autonomous, then you create an interdependency between God and man as part of God's essence. You turn the creation from a sovereign work of God for His own glory into something that was transcendently necessary for the value of God's own essence and perfection. God does not depend on the back-determinism of His own finite creation for the perfection of His own being. Are you ready to embrace process theology yet?

 

[Winman]

If God knows them with certainty, they will happen unalterably. If they must happen, the creature does not have a free will and cannot be morally responsible.

The word in red is error. God knows what will happen. Now it is true, that if God knows what will happen, it must happen, but this is because God's foreknowledge is infallible, not necessarily because it was determined.

There is nothing special or supernatural about knowing what is determined. Let's say that I pick the exact winner in each college basketball game this weekend, and tell the exact score. Now that would be pretty fantastic wouldn't it?

But what if you found out I had fixed all the games? I had bribed each team, coach, player, and referee so that the teams I picked would win by the exact scores I predicted. Would that be fantastic or supernatural? No.

In fact, there are known cases of sports games being fixed like this. Ordinary men can do this.

What I am saying is that God could tell you each team that will win this weekend and the exact scores without fixing the games. That is what is so incredibly fantastic about God. Ordinary men can fix games.

 

[AresMan]

Now it is true, that if God knows what will happen, it must happen, but this is because God's foreknowledge is infallible, not necessarily because it was determined.

If it must happen, how can it be true that you "could have done otherwise"?
If you could not have "done otherwise," according to LFW, how can you be morally responsible
If you accept LFW, how can it be true if EDF is true?

There is nothing special or supernatural about knowing what is determined.

Sure, if you are the determiner and the determined (of course, 100% certainty is not possible with us because there are circumstances outside our control).

If there is nothing supernatural about knowing what is determined, then tell me what I will eat for lunch tomorrow. After all, if it is determined (through EDF), and it is not supernatural, then you can do that for me, right?

Let's say that I pick the exact winner in each college basketball game this weekend, and tell the exact score. Now that would be pretty fantastic wouldn't it?

But what if you found out I had fixed all the games? I had bribed each team, coach, player, and referee so that the teams I picked would win by the exact scores I predicted. Would that be fantastic or supernatural? No.

In fact, there are known cases of sports games being fixed like this. Ordinary men can do this.

What I am saying is that God could tell you each team that will win this weekend and the exact scores without fixing the games. That is what is so incredibly fantastic about God. Ordinary men can fix games.

We are discussing the philosophy of moral accountability. Your example has no bearing on the discussion.

 

[Winman]

If it must happen, how can it be true that you "could have done otherwise"?

You could have done otherwise, and if you did, God would know otherwise, this is what Calvinism cannot grasp. God did not determine that Judas would betray Jesus, God never tempts any man to sin. But God knew Judas would choose to betray Christ. If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, then God would have known this and could have predicted that. Calvinists cannot grasp this, or at least seem unable to grasp it. I really believe they understand this quite well, but it would disagree with their theology.

If you could not have "done otherwise," according to LFW, how can you be morally responsible

You could have done otherwise, therefore you are morally responsible.

If you accept LFW, how can it be true if EDF is true?

I am not into all these types of philosophical arguments, I simply believe men can make choice. I do not deny that God (and others) cannot influence choice, that is obvious.

Sure, if you are the determiner and the determined (of course, 100% certainty is not possible with us because there are circumstances outside our control).

If you can determine the outcome of any event, there is nothing special about predicting the event. Everybody is a prophet if they predict what they determined, I could predict I will go to work tomorrow. Big deal.

If there is nothing supernatural about knowing what is determined, then tell me what I will eat for lunch tomorrow. After all, if it is determined (through EDF), and it is not supernatural, then you can do that for me, right?

Well, if you determine now to have tuna fish, that is what will happen. Predicting that for you is no big deal. But if you ask me to predict what you will eat, now that would be something special, because I cannot determine what you will choose to eat. You are supporting my argument, God is fantastic because he can correctly predict what you will eat when you are the one who determines what you will eat.

We are discussing the philosophy of moral accountability. Your example has no bearing on the discussion.

Sure it does, if God determines what you do, and you MUST do it, then you cannot be held accountable. You are merely a robot or puppet under his control.

 

[DaChaser1]

You could have done otherwise, and if you did, God would know otherwise, this is what Calvinism cannot grasp. God did not determine that Judas would betray Jesus, God never tempts any man to sin. But God knew Judas would choose to betray Christ. If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, then God would have known this and could have predicted that. Calvinists cannot grasp this, or at least seem unable to grasp it. I really believe they understand this quite well, but it would disagree with their theology.

You could have done otherwise, therefore you are morally responsible.


I am not into all these types of philosophical arguments, I simply believe men can make choice. I do not deny that God (and others) cannot influence choice, that is obvious.



If you can determine the outcome of any event, there is nothing special about predicting the event. Everybody is a prophet if they predict what they determined, I could predict I will go to work tomorrow. Big deal.



Well, if you determine now to have tuna fish, that is what will happen. Predicting that for you is no big deal. But if you ask me to predict what you will eat, now that would be something special, because I cannot determine what you will choose to eat. You are supporting my argument, God is fantastic because he can correctly predict what you will eat when you are the one who determines what you will eat.



Sure it does, if God determines what you do, and you MUST do it, then you cannot be held accountable. You are merely a robot or puppet under his control.

So god cannot dtermine future events, he always sees them happening as bystander?

So God did not send foreign nations to attack Isreal, merely know that they would?

God did NOT cause/predetermine Death of jesus, just saw it would happen?

 

[Skandelon]

Yet, you argue that the "mystery" of the human will lies with the human. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for the human to understand the rationale of this autonomous nature of contra-causal choice.

Non sequitur...

Just because I affirm self-determinition doesn't mean I can fully understand, define or explain how all the processes, factors, influences work. Just because I have a nervous system doesn't mean I have to know how it works. Humanity has has studied life and its origin for centuries and they still can't really define, recreate or fully understand it....yet we are living and are surrounding by living things. Just because the will (and the mystery of how it works) is within us doesn't in any way suggest we can fully define or comprehend it.

The rest of your polemic is based on that initial fallacy, so I'll leave it at that...

If no form of determinism is necessary, your indeterminism essentially begs the question.

Not so. Why? Because I'm not the one drawing a conclusion, you are. I simply appeal to mystery and say that the answers are unknowable because it hasn't been revealed. You claim to know the answer, but without clear biblical support and in fact your conclusions appear to create apparent contradictions with other revealed truths in scripture. All the more reason to just appeal to mystery one step before you do.

If no form of determinism is possible, then everything is essentially random.

The word 'random' and 'chance' are words men have created to describe that which they cannot measure, recreate, or fully define....which is also known as "mystery." Just because we can't define how a free moral agent (whether divine or human) comes to a particular choice doesn't mean its random, because even that answer assumes that there is no better answer that is simply not known to us.

It is clear that we are, by nature, wicked and evil, according to the Bible.
It is clear that we are morally responsible before God for all evil that we do.
It is also clear that we cannot live sinless lives.

Paul taught, " No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." Yet, it appears you are arguing that the last time you sinned that God didn't provide you a way out.

We both agree we don't live sinless lives and that we have a war of sin waging, but in all you quotes and arguments you have failed to answer the question. Since you now have a new nature and God has provided you a way out so that you can indeed resist sin, why don't you every time? Is it because (1) God didn't provide you all you needed to resist the temptations, or (2) because you made a contra-causual free choice?

Let me turn the tables on your question. If you believe that we have LFW, that the "sin nature" is only an "influence" in our lives, and that moral responsibility requires the real ability to choose otherwise, then why cannot we simply choose to live sinlessly perfect?

I know you've heard this before and here it actually applies. We are able, but not willing. 'The heart is willing but the flesh is weak.' We are able to willingly resist, but with all the influences of this fallen world, our own sin nature (flesh), and even God purposes to allow us to 'war' and learn from our mistakes/successes, the goal of perfection is never attained until glorification.

In fact, if you are going to argue that a command from God requires that we have the autonomous capacity to carry it out, do we have the ability to obey Matthew 5:48?

Through faith in the one who is perfect. We are perfect not by our righteousness but through His.

See, this is where Calvinist err. They assume that because the bible teaches that we can't be credited as righteous through the law that we can't be credited as righteous through faith. They quote verses like Romans 3:10-15 to prove that 'no one is righteous' and 'no one seeks God' but fail to see the paradigm shift in verses 19-22 of that same chapter where Paul declares, "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Please notice the difference between the first underlined statement and the second:

1. "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law"

2. "now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which... comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Calvinists use verses that prove point #1 in order to support their doctrine that man is born unable for #2. This is biblically unfounded.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, He is amazing in that He can even decree our evil actions

Please define decree. Do you distinguish between his active and permissive decrees as some Cals do?

 

[DaChaser1]

Please define decree. Do you distinguish between his active and permissive decrees as some Cals do?

yes, as per the bible, the Lord is able to DO ANY and ALL that He desires to do, and He also allows/permits as to do as "we please", but always has all things working according to His predestined plans and purposes!

 

[Van]

As we pause, let us consider God causing men to sin. No problem if the sin is not held against the sinner, because it was for God's purpose He predestined and caused it. However, the idea is God punishes the non-elect for the sin they commit. No way around that stumbling block for Calvinists. No answer has been provided. So we still have the strange bedfellows, Arminians pushing paradox and Calvinists pushing paradox, with both saying claiming the incomprehensible is true because God is unknowable. Fiddlesticks.

Shuck and jive # 1, God predestines everything, yet is not the author of sin. A logical impossibility.

Shuck and jive # 2, God predestined the Fall and the consequence of the Fall such that fallen men are unable to choose to seek God and trust in Christ because of the "secondary cause" of compatibilism. An absurdity, like removing the frogs legs, then punishing the frog for not obeying the command to jump.

Do you suppose the Calvinists who push this nonsense do not know they are engaging in circular reasoning?

 

[DaChaser1]

As we pause, let us consider God causing men to sin. No problem if the sin is not held against the sinner, because it was for God's purpose He predestined and caused it. However, the idea is God punishes the non-elect for the sin they commit. No way around that stumbling block for Calvinists. No answer has been provided. So we still have the strange bedfellows, Arminians pushing paradox and Calvinists pushing paradox, with both saying claiming the incomprehensible is true because God is unknowable. Fiddlesticks.

God is Holy, we are ALL sinners by both natures and choices, so he is just demanding that the penalty for sins being commited by sinful Humans be paid and atoned for!

Shuck and jive # 1, God predestines everything, yet is not the author of sin. A logical impossibility.

God has both a determinite and permissive Will, and that in all istances. reardless IF he does it directly, or allows it to hapen. remains fully Sovereign!
IF he did not predestined all things that happened by either of His wills, would not be God!

Shuck and jive # 2, God predestined the Fall and the consequence of the Fall such that fallen men are unable to choose to seek God and trust in Christ because of the "secondary cause" of compatibilism. An absurdity, like removing the frogs legs, then punishing the frog for not obeying the command to jump.

God did not Predestined the fall , but He did predestined the Cross of salvation, he determined that Jesus would be the messiah to come to atone for the sins of His people!

Do you suppose the Calvinists who push this nonsense do not know they are engaging in circular reasoning?

NOT circular reasoning, its just being very consistent with the doctrine in the Bible as reards to the fall, sinful state, and the Cross of Christ!

Your error is trying to reason this from the viewpoint of sinful man, while we need to instead see this from the view of God in his inspired scriptures!