And yet in my very first response to you I acknowledge the compatiblistic view of 'control,' and you continue to claim I take your views out of context. What view do you hold if not the compatiblistic view?
No.
I hold the compatibilistic view which states "God foreordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory." That is what I mean by compatiblism. I further mean these things:
1. Man is not acted upon by God in order that man sins. Man sins because it is his desire to do so.
2. Man is absolutely responsible for his sin
3. God super-intends even gravely sinful things to suit His purposes.
Now, you acknowledge your understanding of the "compatibilistic view of 'control'" yet you do not acknowledge our understanding of compatiblism. This is evidenced by the statement in your first response:
If you'd like to replace that with "compatiblistic control," then fine. It all amounts to the same thing. You have God in ultimate control (i.e. the determining factor) of your choices. However you want to nuance that doesn't change that simple fact.
You are assuming that compatibilistic control means that God is the determining factor of our choices. We do not agree. You go further to state, pretty much unequivocally, that how we define what we mean does not matter.
You are reading your understanding of compatibilism into what we mean by it. Again, you are seeking to define what we mean according to your own definitions rather than accepting at face value what we mean and allowing us to define our own terms.
Now who is taking others comments out of context? Do you really think that is what I think you believe? I think you are a compatibilist and I acknowledged that from the beginning AA. Now move on...
No.
You said I believe that God is the determining factor in all my choices and no matter what I say it is the case.
Further more, I never stated what I think you believe. I think you can define for us what you believe. I see no need to define your belief for you--a favor you seem unwilling or unable to return.
And yet if you read back through my OP you will see that I qualify the word 'control' with that exact same word. Interesting...
Sure you use "ultimate" but you don't use it in the same way I did. You state, quite plainly, that you think our understanding of compatibilism means that "God controls people" when we mean "ultimate control" to mean that God controls every circumstance.
Now can we move on to the point of the OP and move off the tired old, "you just don't understand us" argument?
No.
You have yet to demonstrate an accurate understanding and I will not grant this when it is itself the issue. Your OP is based on a faulty understanding of our position--that is the issue.
Then you deny that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass? After all, your desire did 'come to pass,' did it not? Where did it originate if not with God? If in man then How did God come to know of it and how do you maintain the Calvinistic concept of sovereignty?
Do I deny that "God decrees whatsoever comes to pass?" In the way you mean it absolutely. The Westminster Confession never says nor implies that this includes my desire.
What the Westminster Confession does say and what I do affirm is this:
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Your understanding disallows everything after "...comes to pass." The Westminster Divines specifically ruled out your understanding. Your understanding requires God to author sin and to do violence to the will of the creature and to remove liberty or contingency of second causes.
So, again, we see you wanting to define things according to your understanding and your desires rather than defining things as they have been defined by others.
I affirmed you believed 'compatibilistic control' in my first response. So, are you sure it is not you who is reading something into my responses and intent?
No, you sought to affirm (and by doing so put words into my mouth) that I believed in compatibilistic control. I believe in compatiblism. I believe in compatibilism according to how I, not you, define it. I have explained what I believe and you have continually sought to say "you don't believe that."
Yes, but do you affirm Satan can act 'independently' from God? Again, I think we both affirm the concept of permissive control, but I'm talking about the origin of Satan's evil desire. Where did it originate?
No, I do not affirm that Satan can act independently of God.
You are looking for a needle in a haystack when the needle has never been defined. Where did Satan's evil desire come from? We're not told. It isn't the issue to the biblical writers. They concern themselves with facts, not speculation. Satan is real. He used to be an angel. Where the evil came from is a mystery and I don't know of one biblical writer that makes the "where" an issue.
The Archangel
