Calvinism and Open Theism are strange bedfellows?

[glfredrick]

Every Calvinist who argues for God's permissive will, where God allows autonomous choices by people, defends Open Theism. Therefore when Calvinism attacks folks, calling them Open Theists, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Either God is the author of sin, or God does not predestine everything, which is Open Theism to a limited degree. Strange bedfellows indeed!!

No, you could not be more wrong... But the ironic thing is that you will never know why you are so wrong because you are unteachable.

 

[AresMan]

Just because I affirm self-determinition doesn't mean I can fully understand, define or explain how all the processes, factors, influences work.

But, you assert that moral responsibility is dependent upon something that you also necessarily assert as a mystery in every human inexplicable by any human. By doing so, you would then demand that God must create humans with this same mystery that is ontologically autonomous from the Creator Himself. Therefore, if you are not an Open Theist, and you believe that God exhaustively knows all future contingencies, then you are stuck in arguing that an essential part of the Creator is determined by the creation that the Creator determined to create. Catch-22!
We both agree that there is a mystery. It makes sense that the mystery lies with the eternal Creator, not the finite creation.

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.

Sure, you may not know how it works due to your naturally limited capacity to learn the entire body of available knowledge, but there exists scientific material available from those who have studied it.
Contrary to your example, you necessarily assert that moral responsibility must be based on something that is intrinsic to man himself, autonomous from the Creator, and is also necessarily impossible to understand. All because of your a priori commitment to Libertarian Free Will.

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

And your polemic is based on an a priori commitment to a philosophical tautology.

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.

We both appeal to mystery, but the mystery lies with the Creator Who has formed and fashioned our beings. He knows us better than we can possibly know ourselves. To take the mystery away from the Creator and put it autonomously on the creation because of an illogical tautology is your problem and the burden of proof lies with you.

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.

As I said before, we both appeal to mystery. It makes most sense to place the mystery with the One Who created, rather than autonomously intrinsic in the creation that came from the Creator.
I do not claim to know the answers; however, I can at least understand that pure indeterminist incompatibilism (as argued by LFW proponents) is a tautology when it necessarily asserts that a creature can will and act contrary to its own greatest desire.

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.

1. If one does not act according to one's greatest desire, one has not acted with sanity.
2. If a finite creature can create ex nihilo (i.e. make determinations 100% autonomous from the Creator), then..
2a. God does not have exhaustive knowledge of future contingent actions of the creatures, or
2b. God determined that His creation will autonomously determine a portion of His eternal being--His knowledge (catch-22).

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?

1. Paul, as a finite creature, spoke the inspired words of God from the perspective of a human being and sinner. He related to his audience.
2. Look carefully at the context. It is about Israelites who fell into apostasy.
1Cor 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Cor 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Cor 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1Cor 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1Cor 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
1Cor 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
1Cor 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
All these examples are of final apostasy, not common temptation.

3. Look carefully at verse 13 itself. The verse itself is NOT a statement that it is always a real possibility that a Christian can avoid any sinful action. Otherwise, you would have to argue for the real possibility of sinless perfection contrary to Romans 7, Galatians 5:17, and 1 John 1:8-10 among others.
1Cor 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
As the Bible teaches compatibilistically in other places, it does so here as well. Paul gives examples of apostasy from Israelites under the Old Covenant in the wilderness and uses these as warnings to Christians not to do as they did. He, then, also gives a promise of God that the only temptation in which we will actually be allowed to be overtaken are those that are "common to man." We will ultimately be delivered from anything that would otherwise cause final apostasy. This passage is an excellent support for the "perseverance of the saints" that is compatible with the idea that Christians will neither be sinlessly perfect, nor apostate.

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.'

Yes, and this is the reality that frustrated Paul in Romans 7 and Galatians 5.

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.

If we are able in the incompatibilistic sense in every, little choice that can result in either sin or non-sin, then how can you possibly argue against the real possibility of sinless perfection? If you say that no one can be sinlessly perfect, then you have the same "dilemna" that I have, and under your rules of incompatibilism, man cannot be morally responsible.

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

Amen. :thumbsup:

 

[AresMan]

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.

2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Phi 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
Phi 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Why do we say that man cannot autonomously do #2? Because the Scriptures teach that. The conclusion of Paul is that the Law condemns both Jew and Gentile AND that Christ fulfilled the Law with access to God by faith. Paul also argues that even the faith is something that God must give through the Spirit, and that one who "has" faith is a believer.

 

[glfredrick]

I appreciate that. I've been reading some of the early church father recently and it is very interesting...very different...

Indeed. The theological ball bounced a lot in those days when the (generic) church was trying to figure out just how Scripture played out.

Well, Calvinism is very 'deterministic' at its root. That is just factual. Even compatibilism, the 'milder' form, is the belief that determinism is compatible with human freedom, which doesn't deny determinism...

Well... Just about every person who held to some form of Calvinism -- even before it was called Calvinism -- would disagree with you on that point. WARS have been fought over that point.

You are wrong, this IS your strawman concerning Calvinism, and you are additionally making attempt to use logic to justify your incoherent belief concerning Calvinism. I cannot say it more plainly than that. The God of the Bible IS NOT DETERMINISTIC and only heretical hyper-Calvinism stipulates that to be true. You KNOW that and yet you argue it continually.

Allah is deterministic. We war against that sort of doctrine.

Perhaps your study of the church fathers will enlighten you, but probably not. You have bought in to a number of rather liberal theological approaches of late (I see the rudiments in your responses) and I have to consider that in one of two ways -- either you are ignorant of just where you are headed or you are doing it on purpose -- and if on purpose, then I'm done with you. If you are yet ignorant, then there is hope that docrtrinal reasoning based on Scripture may yet cause you to have a change of mind on the issue.

The whole line of questioning that you see from TCassidy and so many other Calvinists where they ask, "What caused you to choose Christ and not someone else?" is based out of a theistic deterministic framework which claims that God has 'freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass.' Many, if not most, understand 'ordained' as to 'predetermine.'

No... It is based on God's plan, and that plan includes the free moral agency of humankind. We can decide -- just not to the level that you advocate in libertarian free will. We are "slaves" (doulos) to either Christ or Satan. We do not have libertarian free will, but we do make moral choices and are culpable for those choices whether or not we understand them or desire them.

“Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself, what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some and eternal death for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to death,” (Institutes, Book III, Ch. XXI, Sec. 5). ## Double predestination

Predestination is not "determinism." If it were, we would have to blame God for some of the blasphemy that we see.

As I just explain, and I hope was clear, I am not claiming you don't take into account the free agency of man. But, likewise, you are not denying theistic determinism by doing so, you are only affirming the two are "compatible." I've addressed this view quite thoroughly, and fairly, IMO. Now, you are obviously welcome to take issue with that, but I will expect you to do so with some measure of documentation (i.e. quote my words and show where I have failed to properly represent you and why). But, unfounded and UNDOCUMENTED accusations of fallacies won't fly with me. Quote my exact words and then EXPLAIN how THOSE words misrepresent YOUR view, which I do each time I bring such a charge.

You really should take to understand this issue better... You THINK you grasp it, but every time you begin to write it becomes more clear that you do not -- and worse, that you are mostly on an un-winnable war against God and God's people.

 

[quantumfaith]

I appreciate that. I've been reading some of the early church father recently and it is very interesting...very different...


Well, Calvinism is very 'deterministic' at its root. That is just factual. Even compatibilism, the 'milder' form, is the belief that determinism is compatible with human freedom, which doesn't deny determinism...

The whole line of questioning that you see from TCassidy and so many other Calvinists where they ask, "What caused you to choose Christ and not someone else?" is based out of a theistic deterministic framework which claims that God has 'freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass.' Many, if not most, understand 'ordained' as to 'predetermine.'

“Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself, what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some and eternal death for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to death,” (Institutes, Book III, Ch. XXI, Sec. 5). ## Double predestination


As I just explain, and I hope was clear, I am not claiming you don't take into account the free agency of man. But, likewise, you are not denying theistic determinism by doing so, you are only affirming the two are "compatible." I've addressed this view quite thoroughly, and fairly, IMO. Now, you are obviously welcome to take issue with that, but I will expect you to do so with some measure of documentation (i.e. quote my words and show where I have failed to properly represent you and why). But, unfounded and UNDOCUMENTED accusations of fallacies won't fly with me. Quote my exact words and then EXPLAIN how THOSE words misrepresent YOUR view, which I do each time I bring such a charge.

Slightly off target here Skan, have you ever read the didache(sp)?

 

[quantumfaith]

Indeed. The theological ball bounced a lot in those days when the (generic) church was trying to figure out just how Scripture played out.



Well... Just about every person who held to some form of Calvinism -- even before it was called Calvinism -- would disagree with you on that point. WARS have been fought over that point.

You are wrong, this IS your strawman concerning Calvinism, and you are additionally making attempt to use logic to justify your incoherent belief concerning Calvinism. I cannot say it more plainly than that. The God of the Bible IS NOT DETERMINISTIC and only heretical hyper-Calvinism stipulates that to be true. You KNOW that and yet you argue it continually.

Allah is deterministic. We war against that sort of doctrine.

Perhaps your study of the church fathers will enlighten you, but probably not. You have bought in to a number of rather liberal theological approaches of late (I see the rudiments in your responses) and I have to consider that in one of two ways -- either you are ignorant of just where you are headed or you are doing it on purpose -- and if on purpose, then I'm done with you. If you are yet ignorant, then there is hope that docrtrinal reasoning based on Scripture may yet cause you to have a change of mind on the issue.



No... It is based on God's plan, and that plan includes the free moral agency of humankind. We can decide -- just not to the level that you advocate in libertarian free will. We are "slaves" (doulos) to either Christ or Satan. We do not have libertarian free will, but we do make moral choices and are culpable for those choices whether or not we understand them or desire them.



Predestination is not "determinism." If it were, we would have to blame God for some of the blasphemy that we see.




You really should take to understand this issue better... You THINK you grasp it, but every time you begin to write it becomes more clear that you do not -- and worse, that you are mostly on an un-winnable war against God and God's people.

GL, this is honest. It is very difficult for me to see how "predestination" is not at the very least "partial determinism". How is it not?

 

[Skandelon]

Well... Just about every person who held to some form of Calvinism -- even before it was called Calvinism -- would disagree with you on that point. WARS have been fought over that point.

Depends on who you talk to and how they understand Theistic Determinism. I believe you have defended the compatiblistic claims on this forum before, right?

Well according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here is the definition:

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.

So, the philosophical stance of many (if not most) Calvinists (including you, if I remember correctly) is defined as affirming that determinism is true and is compatible with free will. Yet, you deny this...why? And you accuse me of not being knowledgable on this subject? You are only embarrassing yourself by attempting to insult me when clearly you are the one who doesn't understand these matters.

Predestination is not "determinism." If it were, we would have to blame God for some of the blasphemy that we see.

I personally couldn't agree more. But what you clearly have failed to understand is that Calvinists here and elsewhere argue that God's full omniscience of the past, present, and future prior to creating the universe effectively predetermines every single thing that comes to pass. That is theistic determinism, and the position call 'compatiblism' claims this determinism is 'compatible' with free moral agency, it DOESN'T deny determinism as you do.

The God of the Bible IS NOT DETERMINISTIC and only heretical hyper-Calvinism stipulates that to be true. You KNOW that and yet you argue it continually.

If you deny theistic determinism then you are denying compatiblism, a system you defended before. You are simply mistaken and yet you have the audacity to say that I don't grasp this? Really?

 

[Skandelon]

GLF, Just in case that is not enough support to convince you, here is JI Packer:

Question: "What is compatibilism?"

Answer: 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.

See, he doesn't deny determinism, he claims it is compatible with free agency. This is the typical view of Calvinism. Maybe you were just confusing the term 'determinism' with 'fatalism' or something?

 

[Skandelon]

2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

Where does this say men can't believe the Gospel appeal? We all agree that no everyone has faith in God.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Where does this say men can't believe the Gospel appeal?

Phi 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
Phi 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

And again, where does this say men can't believe the Gospel appeal? It says God has given for them to believe, not that they can't???

Why do we say that man cannot autonomously do #2? Because the Scriptures teach that.

Where? You are reading something into all those texts that it never actually says...

The conclusion of Paul is that the Law condemns both Jew and Gentile AND that Christ fulfilled the Law with access to God by faith. Paul also argues that even the faith is something that God must give through the Spirit, and that one who "has" faith is a believer.

Where?

It says just the opposite: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

You make it sound as if pursuit through the law is as fruitless as pursuit through faith in Christ, but clearly this verse shows us that the Gentiles have obtained it because they pursued it by faith, rather than works. (I'll get to your other post tomorrow. Thanks for actually responding with intellectual arguments. That is refreshing.)

 

[glfredrick]

GL, this is honest. It is very difficult for me to see how "predestination" is not at the very least "partial determinism". How is it not?

The only and best answer I can give is because God says it is not. Again, as has been said multiple times by those who are making attempt to be truthful in these debates, "election" does not equal "salvation." It only equals "election" TO salvation. Salvation also must include all the other components, effectual call, justification, regeneration, faith/repentance (cannot have one without the other), adoption, sealing, sanctification, perseverence, and ultimately glorification before one can truly say that he or she is "saved."

We can argue about the LOGICAL ORDER of the components above, but we CANNOT argue that ALL are required unless we adopt an heterodox view of Scripture and of God, Himself.

 

[glfredrick]

GLF, Just in case that is not enough support to convince you, here is JI Packer:

Question: "What is compatibilism?"

Answer: 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.

See, he doesn't deny determinism, he claims it is compatible with free agency. This is the typical view of Calvinism. Maybe you were just confusing the term 'determinism' with 'fatalism' or something?

You define "determinism" as "fatalism" constantly, as do the persons you cite who argue against Calvinism.

 

[AresMan]

Where does this say men can't believe the Gospel appeal? We all agree that no everyone has faith in God.
[...]
Where does this say men can't believe the Gospel appeal?
[...]
And again, where does this say men can't believe the Gospel appeal? It says God has given for them to believe, not that they can't???
[...]
Where? You are reading something into all those texts that it never actually says...
Where?

Read these verses together, not separately. If you read them together, you should see that they interlock and contribute pieces to one coherent truth.

1. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
2. Not all men have faith.
3. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (see 1,2). Those who are in the Spirit do if the Spirit dwells in them. Only those who are saved have the Spirit.
So, who then has faith, has the Spirit in them, and can, therefore, please God?
4. Faith is given by God, resulting in conversion.

When you try to separate each verse into its own isolated context, you can ask the same question. However, when you take them all together, they answer the question.

 

[glfredrick]

Read these verses together, not separately. If you read them together, you should see that they interlock and contribute pieces to one coherent truth.

1. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
2. Not all men have faith.
3. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (see 1,2). Those who are in the Spirit do if the Spirit dwells in them. Only those who are saved have the Spirit.
So, who then has faith, has the Spirit in them, and can, therefore, please God?
4. Faith is given by God, resulting in conversion.

When you try to separate each verse into its own isolated context, you can ask the same question. However, when you take them all together, they answer the question.

Oh, brother... You've done it now! Asking for a coherent theology is akin to calling someone a devil worshiper around here. :saint:

 

[Skandelon]

Read these verses together, not separately.

Kind of like, uh, proof texting?

It's like the old joke my hermeneutics prof told me, you can make people believe suicide is the right answer by that method:
1. Judas hung himself
2. Go and do likewise
3. What thou doeth, doeth quickly

See, it doesn't always work.

If you read them together, you should see that they interlock and contribute pieces to one coherent truth.

Even if they were actually written together an objective reader wouldn't necessarily come to your conclusion. Look at it from a new perspective. Take off the Calvinistic lenses for a sec and at least understand the other perspective:

1. Without faith it is impossible to please God. [so God sent his son, the apostles, inspired scripture with the powerful gospel appeal, and the church to carry that message to the world so that all could believe and be saved. One must be IN CHRIST to please him and faith is the gate by which one enters.]

2. Not all men have faith. [Some know the truth and choose to trade that truth in for lies. They refuse to love the truth and be saved. They refuse to walk through the open gate.]

3. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. [Neither could the carnal brethren in Corinth (1 Cor 3). If we choose to live by the flesh we won't be pleasing to God. This says nothing about man's ability or lack thereof to enter into Christ by faith, thus making our formerly filthy works into something that does please Him.]

4. Faith is given by God, resulting in conversion. [Agreed, but not irresistibly so. Faith does come through hearing God's truth, but people can choose to 'trade that truth in for lies' and 'refuse to accept the truth and so be saved," thus allowing their hearts to grow calloused to His revelations. A gift doesn't have to be irresistibly given for the giver to get the credit for giving it. ]

 

[Skandelon]

You define "determinism" as "fatalism" constantly, as do the persons you cite who argue against Calvinism.

Again, an accusation without documentation. Put up or hush up.

And go ahead and admit you were incorrect about accusing me of not properly representing your view as clearly JI Packer and many others DO in fact understand that Calvinism (compatibilism) does support theistic determinism and you were attempting to deny that fact and did so with such destain for me personally that you embarrassed yourself...

 

[Skandelon]

But, you assert that moral responsibility is dependent upon something that you also necessarily assert as a mystery

I don't 'assert' it is a mystery, IT IS a mystery because scripture doesn't tell us the answer. The scriptures don't teach compatibilistic conclusions, those are speculations based on the philosophical and logical reasoning of finite creatures. The error is drawing hard and fast conclusions, as your system does, where scripture doesn't.

The conclusions drawn by compatibilism appear to create unneeded paradoxes. I'm fine accepting a paradox that the scripture actually affords (i.e. trinity), but I'm not fine with accepting one created by man-made philosophical conclusions. It's like the Big Bang scientists who talk as if they have the facts on the matter when all they have is a theory. Theistic determinism is a theory posed to answer a MYSTERY. I believe even an objective deterministic scholar would admit this fact.

Plus, you system eventually appeals to mystery anyway...I just think it does so too late to avoid creating unneeded conflict in the text.

By doing so, you would then demand that God must create humans with this same mystery that is ontologically autonomous from the Creator Himself.

Well, we do know we were created in his image and different from the animals, yet what compatibilists suppose constitutes free moral agency carries no real distinction from that of animal instinct. Additionally, after the fall God himself declares that they have become like 'us' knowing both good and evil. Likewise, we are expected/commanded by God to make choices and held to account for those choices. None of these FACTS lends themselves to the concept that God is the one who ultimately determines the choice. It makes the reading of these texts non-sensical and put God in a negative light by any objective observation. Why accept such speculations?

We both agree that there is a mystery. It makes sense that the mystery lies with the eternal Creator, not the finite creation.

First, I'm glad you concede the point that this is a mystery, rather than one I'm 'asserting.' Second, you have set up a false dichotomy by suggesting the mystery is either with the creator or the creation, when I admit it is both. Even with all our science and technology we still know VERY little about the complexities of the human body (much less the rest of all creation). Do you really think you have the complexities of the will all figured out?

Contrary to your example, you necessarily assert that moral responsibility must be based on something that is intrinsic to man himself, autonomous from the Creator, and is also necessarily impossible to understand. All because of your a priori commitment to Libertarian Free Will.

Several problems here. 1) Being 'intrinsic to man himself, autonomous from the creator' is not my assertion alone, but one Compatibilists go to great lengths to maintain themselves by continually pointing to man's freedom being rooted in their choosing as they want/according to their nature. And (2) as you've already conceded we both admit we can't understand it all. Thus, (3) my commitment to LFW has nothing to do with accepting those points, and I assure you my commitment to what I believe scripture teaches far exceeds and pre-dates my commitment to LFW, as I was an ardent supporter of Calvinistic doctrine for about a decade of my life.

I do not claim to know the answers; however, I can at least understand that pure indeterminist incompatibilism (as argued by LFW proponents) is a tautology when it necessarily asserts that a creature can will and act contrary to its own greatest desire.

I don't make that assertion. As I've done many times before I'd be glad to provide you my definition: "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)."

Presuming as if man's 'greatest desire' as determined by his nature, is somehow established by some source other than the agent himself in such a way that it could not have been otherwise, is unfounded and speculative at best.

2. If a finite creature can create ex nihilo (i.e. make determinations 100% autonomous from the Creator), then..
...
2b. God determined that His creation will autonomously determine a portion of His eternal being--His knowledge (catch-22).

Well, I find that catch-22 (paradox) easier to swallow that the one where God originates, rather than being informed by, the heinous intent of Jeffery Dahmer to molest, kill and eat his victims (or insert any evil intent here). Especially in light of the biblical revelation that teaches God doesn't even tempt men to evil, much less casually determine it. If God is not 'informed' by this intent, then you are left with the catch-22 that he originated it himself, something the Bible CLEARLY rejects. My catch-22 looks better than yours because it doesn't contradict the bible and impugn God's holiness...it simply appeals to mystery regarding infinite causal relationship regarding divine omniscience and human choice.

 

[Van]

Both Calvinism, other than Hyper Calvinism, and Arminianism claim everything is not predestined, yet God's knowledge of the future is both exhaustive and perfect. Therefore both teach God is the author of sin if viewed logically, but say God is not the author of sin because they claim like Gnostics, they have secret knowledge that this impossibility is true. Strange bedfellows.

 

[glfredrick]

Both Calvinism, other than Hyper Calvinism, and Arminianism claim everything is not predestined, yet God's knowledge of the future is both exhaustive and perfect. Therefore both teach God is the author of sin if viewed logically, but say God is not the author of sin because they claim like Gnostics, they have secret knowledge that this impossibility is true. Strange bedfellows.

Van, your mistake is with the term "viewed logically." While you continually bereate those who fail to view the Scriptures the way you do, you also constantly invoke LOGIC into your own strawman arguments against others.

We do not "view logically" to the end result doctrines such as soteriology, rather, we view them according to the limits placed by God's revelation, i.e., Scripture. Scripture does indeed say that God has exhaustive knowledge, past, present, and yes, future -- this is born out by the many, many accurate prophecies both OT and NT -- and yet the same Scriptures also stipulate that God is not either deterministic nor the author of sin (God forbid that we even utter such blasphemy!).

So, we view ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES RIGHTLY DIVIDED, not as per your continual strawman, logic.

 

[Van]

Compatibilism is like programing, we always choose what we are programmed to choose. God created us with our compatiblistic programming which predetermines our choices. But because God predestined us though compatibilism, He is not responsible for our predestined actions. Hangs together nicely don't you think.

The doctrines of Arminianism and Calvinism create "needless paradoxes" and should be reformed in light of the logical necessities of scripture, i.e. God is not the author of sin because He punishes us for the sins we commit, therefore everything is not predetermined by God.

 

[glfredrick]

Compatibilism is like programing, we always choose what we are programmed to choose. God created us with our compatiblistic programming which predetermines our choices. But because God predestined us though compatibilism, He is not responsible for our predestined actions. Hangs together nicely don't you think.

The doctrines of Arminianism and Calvinism create "needless paradoxes" and should be reformed in light of the logical necessities of scripture, i.e. God is not the author of sin because He punishes us for the sins we commit, therefore everything is not predetermined by God.

Van, in all sincerity, I would ask you to do a real study of the tenets of Calvinism, for you are arguing against a strawman of yours or someone whom you follow's invention and not the real thing.

With one sentence you describe the Calvinistic position accurately, then with another you blow it out of the water making you a non-coherent theologian and sounding much like a fundamentalistic ignorant nincompoop (not a swear word, an English translitteration of a French term "ne compte plus", that means "no longer of any consequence").