J.D. said:
Hello IFB Mole, to answer your OP question, yes, you seem to have properly defined the theological terms as far as I can see, but let's wait for more input from some better trained theologians than myself.
But given that the terms are defined properly, are they understood properly? Compatibility, as you've presented it here, is a compromise position on the predeterminate counsel of God. It leaves as its final conclusion that the work of God in determining the end from the beginning is mystery and can not be known. Now we might be able to go along with that, for the secret things belong to God after all. But we can not call something a mystery that is not a mystery. The answers to these questions are in the scripture - not hidden, but in plain view for all to see. No, we do not know everything there is to know about God, for we are finite beings, but nevertheless there are many things we can know if we will receive them.
Truth is both scriptural and logical. Would you say that scripture is ILLOGICAL? I don't think so. Don't confuse human philosophy with sound logic. One plus one must equal 2 or something is askew. That a truth may be apparently contradictory, such as the union of God and man in Christ, does not make it illogical. It may be supernatural, but not illogical. Just as the order of the universe points to an intelligent God, so does the order of thoughts - logic. Logic is our friend, not our enemy. As a matter of fact, in my own posting, I've begun to appeal first to logic and then to scripture due to the fact that I've found that people who claim to be bible-believers are very unimpressed with the number of scriptures I can display in support of my views. When I first came to this forum Rippon had posted over 100 scripture verses which prove unconditional election. The reply from so-called "Biblicists"? "Proves nothing - anyone can quote scripture. So I don't bother posting scripture as much as I used to.
There are no personal definitions of logic. I am no expert, but I have studied logic briefly and I know that it is a hard science, applying a mathematical analysis to verbal expression. Here's an example: If A is trued, and B is true, then both A and B is true. Too simple? Let's look at the implications:
Let A= God's predeterminate counsel
Let B= Man's responsibility
If A is true, and B is true, then BOTH A and B are true.
Therefore, that God has determined the end from the beginning, and man is responsible for his own actions, are both true.
In which theological system to we see this born out?
Arminianism: A is not true, B is true, so BOTH can not be true. Only B is true.
Arminianism teaches that man, in order to be responsible, must have an absolutely sovereign will, so therefore God's sovereignty is limited and therefore not truly sovereign.
Compatibilism: A is true, B is true, But both are not true.
How is that? Look at the statement: "God’s Sovereignty and man’s free and responsible will are harmonious in God’s eternal decrees."
You've used the word "harmonious" here. Do you mean that these "truths" are both true in a complimentary sense or in a supplementary sense? Are they separate but true, but never meet together into one unified truth? If they do not unify together into a single truth, then you are logically saying that the union of the truths (BOTH A and B) is not true. By "harmony", you imply, maybe unintentionally, that they are separate truths, as the two singers sing different lines, not in unison. In order for man's responsibility and God's sovereignty to be BOTH true, they must sing in unison, not harmony. They are not separate but equal truths; they are subsets of a greater truth.
What you've presented by compatiblism is that two CONTRADICTIONS exist, yet both true, in scripture. This is not possible. The rub comes in the use of the term "free" will. The scripture does not support the notion of a free will in man, except perhaps in the case of Adam. Man's will is in bondage to sin until God changes his will to love Him. Human will can only be said to be free inasmuch as his will follows his desires. The natural man does not desire God.
Ask yourself "how can God work all things after the pleasure of His own will" and yet man be sovereign in his choices? It is a contradiction of both logic and scripture. Only one can be sovereign. That God controls the choices of men, and thereby controls the outcomes of history, through His own power, is the only right conclusion.
Now for the Calvinist system:
A is true, and B is true, therefore, BOTH A and B are true.
Calvinism teaches that man is fully responsible for sin, because sin is what he willfully chooses to do. That God created man knowing that he would sin does not mitigate man's responsibility, for God's commandment was "Thou shalt not", and man did it anyway. Yet this was all in God's plan, knowing that through the fall He would condemn all; and yet save some according to his good pleasure, mercy, and grace; and through the redemption of some, those he had redeemed would despise their own glory, and would live eternally to the praise of God's glory.
