Compatibilism: Is God the Author of Sin?

[JonC]

Well we can keep fixing the story hope you get the gist.

You without choice are forced in a car blind folded with your foot taped and forced on the gas and your hands tied to the steering wheel. Its a smart car so it wont hit the walls on the side of the road, however it will mow down all the people packed in the road.

Good news though you have free agency up ahead there is a fork in the road so later as your running folks over you get to turn left and run over people with red shirts or turn right and run over people with blue shirts.

Wait...wait...I've got a better one. A Presbyterian, a Lutheran, and a Baptist go into a bar....

Apparently something we left off is defining “compatibilism”. Your illustration misses the point that no one here believes men are tied up by God, blind folded, etc. This is what I mentioned earlier when I spoke of being honest. I already told you that we believe men choose freely. And when men sin, they are not influenced by God to sin. So I am not sure why you can't let that go. But perhaps looking at "compatibilism" will help you understand:

Strictly speaking, “compatibilism” is not a religious term. For example, Kant held that not only are “our actions determined by the casual mechanism of nature but also that they are free.” The point is “whether regarding the same effect which is determined by nature, freedom can nevertheless be present or whether freedom is wholly excluded by such an exceptionable rule”. Kant, of course, favored the former and purposed “to unite nature and freedom,” to “remove the apparent contradiction between the mechanism of nature and freedom,” to show that “causality from freedom at least does not contradict nature.” (Kant’s Compatibilism, an essay by Allen Wood).

In other words, we are restricted by nature. Science has demonstrated this time and time again. But within those “bounds” we are also free. This is the philosophical principle, but the principle did not originate in philosophy.

In this thread, it has been called (erroneously) “neo-Calvinism”, I assume as an insult or out of ignorance. Often we hear talk of “Augustinian Compatibilism”. This is not strictly a compatibilism about free will and determinism in general (Augustine rejects any determinism of fate or physical necessity). Augustinian Compatibilism is the view most Christians seem to assume. Augustine held a view that asserted specifically the compatibility of free will and God’s power to determine what men shall will.

According to Augustine’s doctrine, God chooses to give grace to some people rather than others, determining who will be saved. God does not do this without the human will or in violation of its freedom, but precisely by turning human free will towards the good. So, one of the things God can choose is what human free choices will be. Augustine thinks that free will is capable of doing evil, but not good, and is therefore sufficiently deserving of divine justice as eternal punishment is merited by willing evil. In terms of salvation, our free will makes an indispensable contribution to the process of salvation – we must will the good in order to be saved. But this is not possible without God’s grace to will the good, God’s turning us towards the good so that we can freely choose life. In other words, God moves our wills when we can’t, causing us to love and choose and do good things that were impossible without God’s grace. (this explanation is from Philip Cary, Augustine and Philosophy).

So, you see, Compatibilism is not “neo-Calvinism”. It is also not a compromise between libertarian free will and hard determinalism. It is, instead, an attempt to be faithful to both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in salvation as described in Scripture. Men freely choose. Not tied up. Not blind folded. God doesn't cause their sin. They freely make their choices. Even when we are saved we are freely choosing. Please consider these things before you freely choose to reply.

 

[JonC]

Word play.

No, not a "word play" at all. It is true...and you have no ground to deny it because you affirmed that truth at the start...although you erroneously thought "Compatibilism was "neo-Calvinism".

 

[Agent47]

No, not a "word play" at all. It is true...and you have no ground to deny it because you affirmed that truth at the start...although you erroneously thought "Compatibilism was "neo-Calvinism".

It's not word play but distinction without a difference.

About to post my first on compatibilism.

 

[utilyan]

Romans 9:19-24 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3 could read condemned prior verse says Jesus wasn't sent to condemn/judge.
Judgment day isn't here yet its in the future.

Romans 9:

What if God wanted to make a donut as ring around the earth like Saturn? That doesn't mean he will or has.

God the potter has absolute power to make donut day. That doesn't mean he has or will.

God has the power absolute right to make all dirt into chocolate ice cream (I must be hungry).

What if God wanted to make his divine power of potatoes known? He can mold you into a French fry and me into mashed potatoes.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE HAS.

I have no problem with God finding fault with me.

Its funny because he speaks against telling God "Why did you make me like this".




The whole context is Israel it runs from chapter 9 to 11.

Nine starts he is sad for Israel. It breaks his heart so many folks who are apparently the promised chosen are damned.

When it comes to the matter of God defining his elect its a step towards the gentiles rather then the Jews.

Then comes the challenge of God's ways answered back with the potter and his clay.

The story doesn't stop there

Chap 10 1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

He is still going on and longing for Israel to come back.


Chap 11

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.


We see Israel gets passed up, and the elect gentiles picked up on the faith of Jesus.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded


Whole thing hopefully provokes the Jews and might save some of them.

13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

 

[utilyan]

Wait...wait...I've got a better one. A Presbyterian, a Lutheran, and a Baptist go into a bar....

Apparently something we left off is defining “compatibilism”. Your illustration misses the point that no one here believes men are tied up by God, blind folded, etc. This is what I mentioned earlier when I spoke of being honest. I already told you that we believe men choose freely. And when men sin, they are not influenced by God to sin. So I am not sure why you can't let that go. But perhaps looking at "compatibilism" will help you understand:

Strictly speaking, “compatibilism” is not a religious term. For example, Kant held that not only are “our actions determined by the casual mechanism of nature but also that they are free.” The point is “whether regarding the same effect which is determined by nature, freedom can nevertheless be present or whether freedom is wholly excluded by such an exceptionable rule”. Kant, of course, favored the former and purposed “to unite nature and freedom,” to “remove the apparent contradiction between the mechanism of nature and freedom,” to show that “causality from freedom at least does not contradict nature.” (Kant’s Compatibilism, an essay by Allen Wood).

In other words, we are restricted by nature. Science has demonstrated this time and time again. But within those “bounds” we are also free. This is the philosophical principle, but the principle did not originate in philosophy.

In this thread, it has been called (erroneously) “neo-Calvinism”, I assume as an insult or out of ignorance. Often we hear talk of “Augustinian Compatibilism”. This is not strictly a compatibilism about free will and determinism in general (Augustine rejects any determinism of fate or physical necessity). Augustinian Compatibilism is the view most Christians seem to assume. Augustine held a view that asserted specifically the compatibility of free will and God’s power to determine what men shall will.

According to Augustine’s doctrine, God chooses to give grace to some people rather than others, determining who will be saved. God does not do this without the human will or in violation of its freedom, but precisely by turning human free will towards the good. So, one of the things God can choose is what human free choices will be. Augustine thinks that free will is capable of doing evil, but not good, and is therefore sufficiently deserving of divine justice as eternal punishment is merited by willing evil. In terms of salvation, our free will makes an indispensable contribution to the process of salvation – we must will the good in order to be saved. But this is not possible without God’s grace to will the good, God’s turning us towards the good so that we can freely choose life. In other words, God moves our wills when we can’t, causing us to love and choose and do good things that were impossible without God’s grace. (this explanation is from Philip Cary, Augustine and Philosophy).

So, you see, Compatibilism is not “neo-Calvinism”. It is also not a compromise between libertarian free will and hard determinalism. It is, instead, an attempt to be faithful to both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in salvation as described in Scripture. Men freely choose. Not tied up. Not blind folded. God doesn't cause their sin. They freely make their choices. Even when we are saved we are freely choosing. Please consider these things before you freely choose to reply.

"He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification." What does this mean, "for our justification?" So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made your-self just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but he does not justify you without your willing it (Sermons 169:13 [inter A.D. 391-430]). --St. Augustine


Your problem is you credit God too LITTLE.

Am I alive from my capacity to create life or God's? So every second I even exist is that MY will or Gods?

Without God what evil can I do? You would not exist, sinless even.


Stop drinking water for a week and you will die.

But if you drank anything this week well then I should presume you have the audacity to believe you maintain your life rather then GOD.




All TINY and MASSIVE Good things come from God. Absolutely all Good things come from God.


Our nature is GOOD.
==
But if corruption take away all measure, all form, all order from corruptible things, no nature will remain. And consequently every nature which cannot be corrupted is the highest good, as is God. But every nature that can be corrupted is also itself some good; for corruption cannot injure it, except by taking away from or diminishing that which is good. --Augustine (On the Nature of Good)
==

We are created of God, Good by nature, If you insist we are incapable of any good then you have to point to a destruction where no nature has remained.

That's why earlier I'm pointing at the nature of Jesus Christ if he really is 100% HUMAN when the presumption already is that humans are 100% totally depraved, all ready destroyed. There is no person there.....Even personhood is A GOOD THING albeit TINY and only absolutely from God.





====
But pain which some suppose to be in a special manner an evil, whether it be in mind or in body, cannot exist except in good natures. For the very fact of resistance in any being leading to pain, involves a refusal not to be what it was, because it was something good; but when a being is compelled to something better, the pain is useful, when to something worse, it is useless. Therefore in the case of the mind, the will resisting a greater power causes pain; in the case of the body, sensation resisting a more powerful body causes pain. But evils without pain are worse: for it is worse to rejoice iniquity than to bewail corruption; yet even such rejoicing cannot exist save from the attainment of inferior good things. But iniquity is the desertion of better things. Likewise in a body, a wound with pain is better than painless putrescence, which is especially called the corruption which the dead flesh of the Lord did not see, that is, did not suffer, as was predicted in prophecy: "You shall not suffer Your Holy one to see corruption." For who denies that He was wounded by the piercing of the nails, and that He was stabbed with the lance? But even what is properly called by men corporeal corruption, that is, putrescence itself, if as yet there is anything left to consume, increases by the diminution of the good. But if corruption shall have absolutely consumed it, so that there is no good, no nature will remain, for there will be nothing that corruption may corrupt; and so there will not even be putrescence, for there will be nowhere at all for it to be. -- Augustine

====

If you take a hammer and smash 100% totally depraved reprobate's hand he would rejoice rather then cry.

The suffering of being hurt...........as a Calvinist I would forced to say.... ..Only God is the one not liking it.

 

[Agent47]

As I prepare my post on compatibilism, I wish to reiterate that their is a big difference between what Calvinism and Calvinists says, and what what Calvinism logically entails.

After making an assertion/claim, you place yourself under a logical obligation to demonstrate the same.

But everything in the body of Calvinism demonstrates God authoring Sin. Calvinists consistently makes inconsistent claims they can't substantiate. This is why in the other thread I went for what could be demonstrated as opposed to what was being claimed.

Compatibilism is an attempt to flee from this inconsistency. It's goal is simple; cling to theistic determinism without charging God with authoring Sin.

Please note that God authoring Sin carries weighty implications; the Author is morally culpable while the agent is not. That's the crux of Compatibilism. Making or painting man as culpable and getting God off the hook.

On this thread, I will not focus on what Compatibilists claim but rather what Compatibilism logically entails.

 

[JonC]

"He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification." What does this mean, "for our justification?" So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made your-self just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but he does not justify you without your willing it (Sermons 169:13 [inter A.D. 391-430]). --St. Augustine


Your problem is you credit God too LITTLE.

Am I alive from my capacity to create life or God's? So every second I even exist is that MY will or Gods?

Without God what evil can I do? You would not exist, sinless even.


Stop drinking water for a week and you will die.

But if you drank anything this week well then I should presume you have the audacity to believe you maintain your life rather then GOD.




All TINY and MASSIVE Good things come from God. Absolutely all Good things come from God.


Our nature is GOOD.
==
But if corruption take away all measure, all form, all order from corruptible things, no nature will remain. And consequently every nature which cannot be corrupted is the highest good, as is God. But every nature that can be corrupted is also itself some good; for corruption cannot injure it, except by taking away from or diminishing that which is good. --Augustine (On the Nature of Good)
==

We are created of God, Good by nature, If you insist we are incapable of any good then you have to point to a destruction where no nature has remained.

That's why earlier I'm pointing at the nature of Jesus Christ if he really is 100% HUMAN when the presumption already is that humans are 100% totally depraved, all ready destroyed. There is no person there.....Even personhood is A GOOD THING albeit TINY and only absolutely from God.





====
But pain which some suppose to be in a special manner an evil, whether it be in mind or in body, cannot exist except in good natures. For the very fact of resistance in any being leading to pain, involves a refusal not to be what it was, because it was something good; but when a being is compelled to something better, the pain is useful, when to something worse, it is useless. Therefore in the case of the mind, the will resisting a greater power causes pain; in the case of the body, sensation resisting a more powerful body causes pain. But evils without pain are worse: for it is worse to rejoice iniquity than to bewail corruption; yet even such rejoicing cannot exist save from the attainment of inferior good things. But iniquity is the desertion of better things. Likewise in a body, a wound with pain is better than painless putrescence, which is especially called the corruption which the dead flesh of the Lord did not see, that is, did not suffer, as was predicted in prophecy: "You shall not suffer Your Holy one to see corruption." For who denies that He was wounded by the piercing of the nails, and that He was stabbed with the lance? But even what is properly called by men corporeal corruption, that is, putrescence itself, if as yet there is anything left to consume, increases by the diminution of the good. But if corruption shall have absolutely consumed it, so that there is no good, no nature will remain, for there will be nothing that corruption may corrupt; and so there will not even be putrescence, for there will be nowhere at all for it to be. -- Augustine

====

If you take a hammer and smash 100% totally depraved reprobate's hand he would rejoice rather then cry.

The suffering of being hurt...........as a Calvinist I would forced to say.... ..Only God is the one not liking it.

I do not understand exactly what you are addressing in this post. Do Calvinists believe that "only God is the one not liking [the suffering of being hurt]? No, I've never encountered such in their writings or my experience with them. I don't like being hurt and I assume others feel the same. And of course all things come from God. I never said otherwise. But again, with your insistence on definition, our intentions are not "things" to be created by God but rather things that come from the created. Jesus taught that what defiles a man is what proceeds from man (not from God). I suspect He is right.

 

[JonC]

John 3 could read condemned prior verse says Jesus wasn't sent to condemn/judge.
Judgment day isn't here yet its in the future.

Romans 9:

What if God wanted to make a donut as ring around the earth like Saturn? That doesn't mean he will or has.

God the potter has absolute power to make donut day. That doesn't mean he has or will.

God has the power absolute right to make all dirt into chocolate ice cream (I must be hungry).

What if God wanted to make his divine power of potatoes known? He can mold you into a French fry and me into mashed potatoes.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE HAS.

I have no problem with God finding fault with me.

Its funny because he speaks against telling God "Why did you make me like this".




The whole context is Israel it runs from chapter 9 to 11.

Nine starts he is sad for Israel. It breaks his heart so many folks who are apparently the promised chosen are damned.

When it comes to the matter of God defining his elect its a step towards the gentiles rather then the Jews.

Then comes the challenge of God's ways answered back with the potter and his clay.

The story doesn't stop there

Chap 10 1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

He is still going on and longing for Israel to come back.


Chap 11

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.


We see Israel gets passed up, and the elect gentiles picked up on the faith of Jesus.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded


Whole thing hopefully provokes the Jews and might save some of them.

13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

We cannot say that the whole context is Israel because Paul ties this into a redemption that includes Gentiles (verse 30). And God is immutable.

 

[JonC]

As I prepare my post on compatibilism, I wish to reiterate that their is a big difference between what Calvinism and Calvinists says, and what what Calvinism logically entails.

After making an assertion/claim, you place yourself under a logical obligation to demonstrate the same.

But everything in the body of Calvinism demonstrates God authoring Sin. Calvinists consistently makes inconsistent claims they can't substantiate. This is why in the other thread I went for what could be demonstrated as opposed to what was being claimed.

Compatibilism is an attempt to flee from this inconsistency. It's goal is simple; cling to theistic determinism without charging God with authoring Sin.

Please note that God authoring Sin carries weighty implications; the Author is morally culpable while the agent is not. That's the crux of Compatibilism. Making or painting man as culpable and getting God off the hook.

On this thread, I will not focus on what Compatibilists claim but rather what Compatibilism logically entails.

Thank you for the clarification. As we go forward I will take your statements to mean not that Calvinists believe such and such, but that your reasoning would lead you to this conclusion or that.

We all have ideas and beliefs about what opposing theologies ultimately and logically would conclude. Most of the time, they do not reach that destination. For example - Logically, if a man through his unassisted, unaltered, uninfluenced, and natural will choose to get on a lifeboat in order to save himself, then the man is said to have saved himself. A man who, by his own power, becomes a successful businessman is known as a "self-made man". And, logically, if free-will theology is correct, man authors his own salvation. But advocates of Free Will Theology do not arrive at that destination, despite the logic I would impose.

Likewise, as we continue, I think that we all know Calvinists do not arrive at the destination your logic would bring them (otherwise they would not be Calvinists). Not only that, but many Calvinists understand and reject that logic (there really is nothing new under the sun). So that tells us that another reasoning is present, one that seems to be elusive to your understanding. And that is what I would like to convey through this thread.

While you may logically conclude through your own reasoning that Calvinism's ultimate end is that God authors evil, Calvinism itself comes to a different logical conclusion. The difference is the "logic". What we are speaking of here is reasoning through Scripture and forming doctrines. It is natural that men separate on this issue because we do not understand things the same, and we do not reason things out the same way.

There are some here who will never understand the opposing view because they cannot or will not understand reasoning that is not their.own. And it is difficult. It took some time for me to understand the "logic" of Reformation Arminianianism and how they are not really concluding that man saved himself. And it took me a long time to understand the reasoning of Calvinism, why it can never conclude God as the author of evil, or that God saves men against their will. So hopefully this thread will help others see why Calvinists conclude what they conclude instead of imposing an opposing reasoning on Calvinism to generate a false end.

 

[Agent47]

Thank you for the clarification. As we go forward I will take your statements to mean not that Calvinists believe such and such, but that your reasoning would lead you to this conclusion or that.

We all have ideas and beliefs about what opposing theologies ultimately and logically would conclude. Most of the time, they do not reach that destination. For example - Logically, if a man through his unassisted, unaltered, uninfluenced, and natural will choose to get on a lifeboat in order to save himself, then the man is said to have saved himself. A man who, by his own power, becomes a successful businessman is known as a "self-made man". And, logically, if free-will theology is correct, man authors his own salvation. But advocates of Free Will Theology do not arrive at that destination, despite the logic I would impose.

Likewise, as we continue, I think that we all know Calvinists do not arrive at the destination your logic would bring them (otherwise they would not be Calvinists). Not only that, but many Calvinists understand and reject that logic (there really is nothing new under the sun). So that tells us that another reasoning is present, one that seems to be elusive to your understanding. And that is what I would like to convey through this thread.

While you may logically conclude through your own reasoning that Calvinism's ultimate end is that God authors evil, Calvinism itself comes to a different logical conclusion. The difference is the "logic". What we are speaking of here is reasoning through Scripture and forming doctrines. It is natural that men separate on this issue because we do not understand things the same, and we do not reason things out the same way.

There are some here who will never understand the opposing view because they cannot or will not understand reasoning that is not their.own. And it is difficult. It took some time for me to understand the "logic" of Reformation Arminianianism and how they are not really concluding that man saved himself. And it took me a long time to understand the reasoning of Calvinism, why it can never conclude God as the author of evil, or that God saves men against their will. So hopefully this thread will help others see why Calvinists conclude what they conclude instead of imposing an opposing reasoning on Calvinism to generate a false end.

Logic is no respecter of theories or beliefs.
So it is not subject to interpretation.

Do we need philosophy dictionaries on this?

 

[JonC]

Logic is no respecter of theories or beliefs.
So it is not subject to interpretation.

Do we need philosophy dictionaries on this?

It is amazing, isn't it, that even the philosophers can't agree.

We believe that men are not God. Our reasoning is not perfect. Therefore our "logic" is not perfect. We have "logical conclusions", but they are as numerous as the stars. Immanuel Kant is probably the most influential philosopher, and his "logic" is amazing. Yet he reduces Christianity to a religion that teaches morals to the uneducated (Kant was a Deist...or, as I think Woods suggested, a Theist). I don't think we can say Kant was not "logical". "Logically", a man who dies stays dead. Logically, a man can't walk on water or through a solid object. God is not confined to our logic.

Or, you can trust God and lean not on your own understanding.

 

[Agent47]

It is amazing, isn't it, that even the philosophers can't agree.

We believe that men are not God. Our reasoning is not perfect. Therefore our "logic" is not perfect. We have "logical conclusions", but they are as numerous as the stars. Immanuel Kant is probably the most influential philosopher, and his "logic" is amazing. Yet he reduces Christianity to a religion that teaches morals to the uneducated (Kant was a Deist...or, as I think Woods suggested, a Theist). I don't think we can say Kant was not "logical". "Logically", a man who dies stays dead. Logically, a man can't walk on water or through a solid object. God is not confined to our logic.

Or, you can trust God and lean not on your own understanding.

Say you have a twin brother JonD
I'm 4 years younger than you JonC

I can't be 3 years younger than JonD. To claim that is illogical. This is regardless of my beliefs.

But if my reckoning of years shifts by say from 365 to 300 days, from JonD to JonC, I may have a point.


Philosophers differing in belief sets will obviously arrive at different conclusions on Christianity. This is light years apart from Calvinism philosophy which is internally incoherent

 

[JonC]

So it is not subject to interpretation.

You have, BTW, never answered my question -

Scripture teaches us that Joseph's brothers sinned when they sold him into bondage. Scripture also tells us that it was God's intention as well.

You said that Joseph's brothers purposely sold Joseph into slavery. Are you saying God did not intend for Joseph to be sold into slavery?

If not, how do you deal with Joseph's statement to the contrary as you are denying Scripture?

If so, then are you not confirming that God authored sin?

This is not an either-or situation. And that is what I've been saying all along. I think we both affirm Scripture - that the brothers sinned by selling Joseph into slavery, but this was also God's intent. The difference is that you make God out to be the author of sin and I don't. Your logic is flawed, I believe because you are thinking of God's will as if God were man. But I don't know for certain the reason.

 

[Agent47]

You have, BTW, never answered my question -

Scripture teaches us that Joseph's brothers sinned when they sold him into bondage. Scripture also tells us that it was God's intention as well.

You said that Joseph's brothers purposely sold Joseph into slavery. Are you saying God did not intend for Joseph to be sold into slavery?

If not, how do you deal with Joseph's statement to the contrary as you are denying Scripture?

If so, then are you not confirming that God authored sin?

This is not an either-or situation. And that is what I've been saying all along. I think we both affirm Scripture - that the brothers sinned by selling Joseph into slavery, but this was also God's intent. The difference is that you make God out to be the author of sin and I don't. Your logic is flawed, I believe because you are thinking of God's will as if God were man. But I don't know for certain the reason.

I have answered you thrice.
God exploited a wicked plan. He did not author it. His Will on the plan? Make the best of it. And this He did

 

[JonC]

I have answered you thrice.
God exploited a wicked plan. He did not author it. His Will on the plan? Make the best of it. And this He did

So you believe God's redemptive plan is in fact a matter of happenstance. God has no plan, but works to exploit the works of men to his benefit. And, it's just a matter of coincidence that men, throughout history, develop wicked plans that God can use for his benefit. Neo-Arminianism or Open Theism?

 

[Agent47]

So you believe God's redemptive plan is in fact a matter of happenstance. God has no plan, but works to exploit the works of men to his benefit.

You have asked of a specific case and I have answered and restricted myself to that. You are extrapolating. Strawmen.

God's knowledge including foreknowledge is perfect. So He plans ahead, uses men's independent actions well foreknown to accomplish His purpose.

And, it's just a matter of coincidence that men, throughout history, develop wicked plans that God can use for his benefit. Neo-Arminianism or Open Theism?

More strawmen. Calm down.
It's no coincidence, just God's perfect foreknowledge.

God is so sovereign over His creation that He knows all independent decisions and choices we freely make. His sovereignty does not hinge on our independence. Only a weak god would need to run up and down planting thoughts and desires in His creatures to render certain what He decreed.

PS
Foreknowledge means exactly that. Knowing events before they happen as opposed to Calvin(and Calvinists) confused redefinition which conflates foreknowledge with causation

 

[Agent47]

Compatibilism: God is the Author of Sin

Somebody's theoretical framework is so peeved by this title that they changed it to whatever is palatable to their ears.

Why not shut it altogether?

 

[JonC]

Compatibilism: God is the Author of Sin

Somebody's theoretical framework is so peeved by this title that they changed it to whatever is palatable to their ears.

Why not shut it altogether?

I changed the title. Per BB rules the title is to reflect the OP. You said the purpose was not to argue what Compatabilists believe, how it is defined, but to examine"logical conclusions". The original title was provocative. It did not represent Compatabilism, or the belief of compatabilists, but your opinion of where that doctrine as you understand it would lead.

You have failed to prove God as a reactionary God, dependent on the actions of men and happenstance to manipulate his plan of reconciliation. I think some conversation could still be had, but will close the thread as requested.

 

[TCassidy]

Why not shut it altogether?

You got it. Thread closed.