Is there really a conflict between Freedom and Sovereignty, if rightly defined?

[DrJamesAch]

:laugh: You don't get man! That phrase is very commonly used and is interchangeable with saying a loaded question fallacy - which many people would not understand what that fallacy is so you just give this example: "Have you stopped beating your yet?" - uh, try to answer that...give me a yes or no SN...:laugh:

Unbelievable brother, unbelievable. LOL

LOADED QUESTION FALLACY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Also:

(Philosophy / Logic) Logic the rhetorical trick of asking a question that cannot be answered without admitting a presupposition that may be false, as have you stopped beating your wife? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Have+you+stopped+beating+your+wife

 

[jonathanD]

Hi Jonathan, maybe this phraseology will be helpful:
a "free-choice" (assuming it exists) does so logically prior to God's temporal knowlege of the particular choice. If contra-causal freedom exists, than it exists independently of whether God has foreknowledge of it or not.

Foreknowlege is an explanation of God's knowing something temporally prior to it's coming to pass, not logically prior. That COULD be through simple fore-sight (I don't think so) or through some other medium. Perhaps God fore-perceives a temporal event due to a timeless existence such that temporal happenings exist all in one "moment" for him...

Or, he knows it differently by simply knowing all choices anyone will make in any given circumstance. (A view I personally favour).

I think you are making a small error in that since God knows something will occur (in time) than it "CAN'T" happen otherwise, or that it must occur. That messes up the logical priority. It WON'T happen otherwise, but nothing constrains it. It would be more correct to say God couldn't KNOW differently.

IOW: The choice itself decides what God knows about it. If something were different, than it follows only that God would have known otherwise, not that it was impossible.
God's foreknowing that Hitler would invade Poland in 1939 does not stand in causal relationship to the event. Had Hitler NOT invaded Poland, than what follows is that simply God would have known it, not that Hitler COULN'T have done it.

The people will decide your fate inspector Javert! (Sorry, couldn't resist).


Would you say creation is causally prior to these contra-causal decisions?

 

[Van]

Van,

Can you explain, in your view, how exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian freedom can coexist?

Calvinism cannot explain how exhaustive determinism and God being the cause of sin does not make God the author of sin. To make the assertion is irrational, incoherent, and unbiblical. Rather than shuck and jive, why not admit same?

 

[quantumfaith]

Here is a decent article written in terms of the "non-scientist"



Do you believe in free will?

Some physicists and neuroscientists believe in the opposite proposition: determinism. The mathematics of quantum mechanics have a say in this argument: Determinism is impossible unless you are willing to make an even greater philosophical sacrifice.



RECEIVE NEWS ALERTS

SIGN UP
Tom Hartsfield RealClearScience
quantum mechanics free will
[+] More
A determinist point of view says, "If I precisely know the complete workings of a system -- i.e., the position of every particle and how the laws of the universe operate -- I can tell you exactly what it will do in all future situations." For example, by measuring the sun's gravity and the motion of solar system bodies, we can calculate whether an asteroid will hit us or how to position a satellite in a complex orbit above the Earth.

Obviously, humanity has been fairly successful at this: Science and technology underpin the modern world because we largely can understand and anticipate the actions of inanimate objects.

But are you prepared to accept that your mind follows these same rules? That it is a machine which can be completely predicted, like pool balls on a felt table or comets circling a star? That you don't make choices: the choices are already made by the wiring patterns in your brain, and you just carry them out like a colossally complex adding machine? This is the philosophical endgame of classical physics (i.e., Newtonian physics) taken to its logical conclusion.

Those who accept this philosophy simply apply physics to the human brain: If we could know all the molecules and cells and what they were doing, we could predict human thought perfectly. In practice, of course, this is nearly impossible, but it is philosophically possible. And chilling.

Then along came quantum mechanics. When physicists observed that behavior at the atomic level was fundamentally indeterminate, the universal validity of classical physics, as well as philosophical determinism came into question. Physicists recoiled at the idea that their science could no longer claim to predict all things with infinite precision. But, that's what quantum mechanics teaches us. We absolutely cannot know exactly how something will turn out before it happens.

Most physicists eventually accepted this idea as an empirical fact of measurement, but assumed that a flaw in quantum mechanics created the uncertainty. Perhaps, with further insight, some "hidden variable" could allow them to predict things with perfect certainty again.

But that never happened.

John Bell, in a famous 1964 paper, forced everyone to reconsider, both scientifically and philosophically, their support for determinism. His famous theorem, Bell's inequality, is an incredibly profound statement. This relatively simple mathematical proof, when applied to experimental results, gives us a choice: We must either give up determinism or give up the existence of an objective reality explained by science and measurable by humans with instruments. (You can read the gory details about the experiments here.)

So if experiments on quantum phenomena are reliable, then Bell concludes that determinism is false. Most physicists agree.

Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us that there are things which we cannot know about the future, things which are not predetermined but happen with some factor of chance or randomness. Although many things in the world may be predicted, everything is not predetermined, and our actions do not unfold mechanically in a manner predetermined since the very moment of the Big Bang. Free will is preserved.

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/04/03/quantum_mechanics_supports_free_will_106499.html

 

[quantumfaith]

For those who might be interested, here is a link to Bell's Paper which led to Bell's Inequality.

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

 

[Van]

Hi Agedman,

Van, you were doing good until #3.

The Scripture specifically states that God does not tempt any person to do evil. But you knew this.

You also know full well that man is completely evil already in their unregenerate state. There is no need for God to predestine anyone to evil nor "cause" anyone to sin.

The issue is not what the bible says, I was presenting what Calvinism teaches.

There is no need for God to cause anyone to sin, but there is a need for God to allow someone to choose to glorify God or go his or her own way, that is necessary to fulfill God's purpose of creation.

If everything is predestined by God, everything includes sin. You cannot get around that fact using mumbo jumbo.

Would you please show from which creed or statement of faith from which this statement comes?

First, my post demonstrated that exhaustive determinism teaches God causes everything including sin. Not the Bible, but Calvinism's assertion that God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. Calvinism in the WCF then says, irrationally, God is not the author of sin. But if God causes everything, then to assert God is not the author of sin is an absurdity.

What did Calvin say? "God's grace is illustrated by the fact that He does not give away salvation indiscriminately, but gives to some what He denies to others. Ignorance of this great truth detracts from God's glory and prevents true humility." Taken together, God causes us to sin (whatsoever comes to pass) and yet denies salvation to those He caused to sin. Calvin said if you are ignorant of this, you detract from God's glory.

As I said, this is Calvinism 101.

 

[Herald]

Here is a decent article written in terms of the "non-scientist"



Do you believe in free will?

Some physicists and neuroscientists believe in the opposite proposition: determinism. The mathematics of quantum mechanics have a say in this argument: Determinism is impossible unless you are willing to make an even greater philosophical sacrifice.



RECEIVE NEWS ALERTS

SIGN UP
Tom Hartsfield RealClearScience
quantum mechanics free will
[+] More
A determinist point of view says, "If I precisely know the complete workings of a system -- i.e., the position of every particle and how the laws of the universe operate -- I can tell you exactly what it will do in all future situations." For example, by measuring the sun's gravity and the motion of solar system bodies, we can calculate whether an asteroid will hit us or how to position a satellite in a complex orbit above the Earth.

Obviously, humanity has been fairly successful at this: Science and technology underpin the modern world because we largely can understand and anticipate the actions of inanimate objects.

But are you prepared to accept that your mind follows these same rules? That it is a machine which can be completely predicted, like pool balls on a felt table or comets circling a star? That you don't make choices: the choices are already made by the wiring patterns in your brain, and you just carry them out like a colossally complex adding machine? This is the philosophical endgame of classical physics (i.e., Newtonian physics) taken to its logical conclusion.

Those who accept this philosophy simply apply physics to the human brain: If we could know all the molecules and cells and what they were doing, we could predict human thought perfectly. In practice, of course, this is nearly impossible, but it is philosophically possible. And chilling.

Then along came quantum mechanics. When physicists observed that behavior at the atomic level was fundamentally indeterminate, the universal validity of classical physics, as well as philosophical determinism came into question. Physicists recoiled at the idea that their science could no longer claim to predict all things with infinite precision. But, that's what quantum mechanics teaches us. We absolutely cannot know exactly how something will turn out before it happens.

Most physicists eventually accepted this idea as an empirical fact of measurement, but assumed that a flaw in quantum mechanics created the uncertainty. Perhaps, with further insight, some "hidden variable" could allow them to predict things with perfect certainty again.

But that never happened.

John Bell, in a famous 1964 paper, forced everyone to reconsider, both scientifically and philosophically, their support for determinism. His famous theorem, Bell's inequality, is an incredibly profound statement. This relatively simple mathematical proof, when applied to experimental results, gives us a choice: We must either give up determinism or give up the existence of an objective reality explained by science and measurable by humans with instruments. (You can read the gory details about the experiments here.)

So if experiments on quantum phenomena are reliable, then Bell concludes that determinism is false. Most physicists agree.

Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us that there are things which we cannot know about the future, things which are not predetermined but happen with some factor of chance or randomness. Although many things in the world may be predicted, everything is not predetermined, and our actions do not unfold mechanically in a manner predetermined since the very moment of the Big Bang. Free will is preserved.

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/04/03/quantum_mechanics_supports_free_will_106499.html

Not to cast dirt on a surely respected physicist, but the article does not:

1. Approach the physical world from a theistic stand point (or at least it is not stated).
2. Fails to call attention to continued human discovery in science (we do not know all that we can know. Ergo we lack perfect knowledge).

I think the latter point is more important than the former. If we understood science perfectly than we may be able to see order or planning that are shrouded in our imperfect observations.

 

[jonathanD]

Calvinism cannot explain how exhaustive determinism and God being the cause of sin does not make God the author of sin. To make the assertion is irrational, incoherent, and unbiblical. Rather than shuck and jive, why not admit same?

Does that mean you can't (or won't) answer the question? I'm not talking about isms and systems...I'm asking you. Inspector Javert answered the question (quite well IMO), but you and Doc refuse to. Do you agree with Javert's answer?

 

[Herald]

Does that mean you can't (or won't) answer the question? I'm not talking about isms and systems...I'm asking you. Inspector Javert answered the question (quite well IMO), but you and Doc refuse to. Do you agree with Javert's answer?

I do not think that Van understands that Calvinists do not believe in exhaustive determinism. Since Calvinists do not believe it there is nothing to explain.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Would you say creation is causally prior to these contra-causal decisions?

Hi Jonathan

Interesting question. I think I would prefer you to re-phrase it differently; since I am not sure precisely what you mean....but, if I understand where you are coming from, my instinct is to say no.

I don't think that creation itself stands in any causal relationship other than to say that (since I am a free-willer) God's creative act allowed for contra-causally free decisions. Personally, I believe free-decisions were taken into account in God's choice to create.
If LFW exists....it does so only because God chose to permit it.
His foreknowledge of the results of those decisions is incidental to them.

I would say it is the results of the decisions which decide the content of what God foreknows, not the other way around.

I believe your view comes from a common error in understanding necessity and contingency:
If I understand where you are coming from, you see the problem like this:

1.) Necessarily, if God foreknows x then x will happen. (this is true)
2.)God foreknows x <----(a future decision)
The conclusion I think you make is this:
3.) Therefore x will necessarily happen.

This is a common fallacy of transference of necessity.........
The necessity of the first premise is not sufficient to transfer to the conclusion. In order for the above conclusion to be true, BOTH the premises must be necessarily true. But they are not. Consider a similar argument:

1.) Necessarily if Jones is a bachelor, then he is unmarried
2.) Jones is a bachelor
3.) Therefore necessarily Jones is unmarried.
[These first two arguments I bogarted from W. L. Craig's book The Only Wise God]

But, Jones is NOT necessarily unmarried. He just IS unmarried. He is only unmarried contingently. Presumably, Jones could be married. Premise one is only true, because it is true by definition. Thus, as in our first example, God necessarily foreknows what will happen, because his exhaustive foreknowledge follows by definition of his Omniscience. An Omni-________ being is what we mean when we say "God".

Thus, in order to understand the right way to illustrate how God's foreknowledge would work:

1.) If Jones mows the lawn tomorrow, then necessarily, God foreknows it.
2.) If Jones does NOT mow the lawn then necessarily, God foreknows it.
3.) Jones mowed the lawn the next day
4.) Therefore, God necessarily foreknew that Jones mowed the lawn the next day.
5.) If Jones had NOT mowed the lawn, then necessarily God would have known that Jones would NOT mow the lawn.

The CONTENT of what God knows about Jones's lawn-mowing practices follow from what Jones will actually do . However, what Jones will actually do......does not follow from what God knows.

The people will decide your fate inspector Javert! (Sorry, couldn't resist).

"Shoot me now for all I care.....if you let me go, BEWARE!!
You'll still answer to.......JAVERT!"

 

[Skandelon]

If you can say that God sovereignly decreed that man should make decisions without cause

Got to stop you there Luke. I never said that man should make decisions 'without cause.' That is not what we believe. We believe God is the cause of his decisions and has created men to be the cause of their decisions. Choosers make choices. Determiners make determinations. The agent is the cause of his choices and actions, which is why he is responsible for them.

 

[Skandelon]

And here we go again with the citations of creeds and commentaries.

Look, the Bible shows very clearly and simply that He DOES NOT DETERMINE EVERYTHING. I gave several examples FROM THE BIBLE, not a CREED, or a catechism, or a confession (which I have already shown to be faulty in another thread "Major Contradiction in the 1686 Confession"), or commentary, but from the BIBLE:

If God determines ALL THINGS, EVERY THING, then He is ultimately the author of confusion, but 1 Cor 14:33 makes it clear that He is NOT.

If God Determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then He is ultimately the cause of all the temptations that men face, yet James 1:13 says that He is NOT.

If God determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then EVERY THING that He "decrees" would come to pass. 1 Samuel 23:1-14 shows clearly that it did NOT. God clearly said that Saul would "come down" when David asked-HE DID NOT, Saul "FORBARE".

If God determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then He would have had it IN HIS MIND to cause Judah to sin, but Jeremiah 32:35 says that He did NOT.

There are TONS of references like this in the Bible that determinists avoid and cling to their proof texts like, "God declared all things from the beginning to the end". It says DECLARED, not FORCED ALL THINGS TO HAPPEN.

Folks need to learn to interpret passage in light of the passages that are CLEAR on a subject. The law of non contradiction shows that 2 things that are different can not both be equally true at the same time. The Bible can not say "He declares ALL THINGS from the beginning to the end" and that interpreted to mean that He determines all things, and then in another passage of Scripture, as in the four examples above that show He does not.

Instead of dealing with either an apparent contradiction in the Bible, or a conflict with ones belief system, Calvinists simply ignore and avoid the obvious verses and resort back to a confession or creed as an authority on the interpretation of deterministic sovereignty and then use humanistic reasoning to avoid the plain, ordinary and obvious verses in the Bible that are clearly in conflict with their system.

Thank you for you contribution to this thread. I believe you have great insight on these matters. :thumbs:

Ironically, the determinist should be thanking you as well, because if they are correct then you are doing what you have done by God's determined will so as to accomplish His greatest glory. Why aren't they thanking you too? Hmmmm? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

Hi Jonathan, maybe this phraseology will be helpful:
a "free-choice" (assuming it exists) does so logically prior to God's temporal knowlege of the particular choice. If contra-causal freedom exists, than it exists independently of whether God has foreknowledge of it or not.

Foreknowlege is an explanation of God's knowing something temporally prior to it's coming to pass, not logically prior. That COULD be through simple fore-sight (I don't think so) or through some other medium. Perhaps God fore-perceives a temporal event due to a timeless existence such that temporal happenings exist all in one "moment" for him...

Or, he knows it differently by simply knowing all choices anyone will make in any given circumstance. (A view I personally favour).

I think you are making a small error in that since God knows something will occur (in time) than it "CAN'T" happen otherwise, or that it must occur. That messes up the logical priority. It WON'T happen otherwise, but nothing constrains it. It would be more correct to say God couldn't KNOW differently.

IOW: The choice itself decides what God knows about it. If something were different, than it follows only that God would have known otherwise, not that it was impossible.
God's foreknowing that Hitler would invade Poland in 1939 does not stand in causal relationship to the event. Had Hitler NOT invaded Poland, than what follows is that simply God would have known it, not that Hitler COULN'T have done it.

Well put. :thumbs:

I pray people will objectively and thoroughly grapple with this post. Kudos.

 

[Van]

Does that mean you can't (or won't) answer the question? I'm not talking about isms and systems...I'm asking you. Inspector Javert answered the question (quite well IMO), but you and Doc refuse to. Do you agree with Javert's answer?

Folks, JonathanD answers a question with a question, then asserts his opponent is unable to answer the question. Shuck and jive, folks, that is all they have.

How can Calvinism teach God predestines everything, which includes sin because of His exhaustive foreknowledge and then claim God is not the author of sin? No Calvinist will answer that question, they will ask a different question, answer a different question, and otherwise evade the question.

No one on this forum seems willing to answer my question and so the subject is shifted to my views. Shuck and jive folks, shuck and jive.

 

[Gorship]

For those on here who know me, this post may come off differently than you're accustomed to, but I will explain why later on.

erm.. ok

If God desires all to be saved, then why are many on the broad road that leads to destruction, and few on the straight and narrow road that leads to righteousness?

They Reject God and Reject His gift of eternal life though His son Jesus Christ

May I ask you - if your a Calvinist. Does God not desire all to be saved? If you agree with that, would you be willing to agree that your attributes of God and those attributes that are inferred from posts from our Brothers like Winman, and DrJames and Benjamin are describing are different... I cant help but sometimes feel like the tension goes deeper than the surface level we just read about... perhaps its just me though.

2 Peter 3:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Now, what do you mean by to allow their hearts to become repentant to themselves? Do you believe mankind opens their hearts up to allow God to come in, or is it God that crushes that stony heart to bring the gospel Seed and plant it thusly?

Perhaps I misspoke or mistyped (not as smart as you guys remember). At the 'conception' of faith if you will, there is no doubt some kind of 2-fold action that takes place. Whilst man must decide on if He will serve God or not - Christ promises to stand at the door of our hearts and knock (Rev 3:20). Thus the tension of God wishing men to be saved - and our ability to Reject Him by not opening that door is at our own peril is substantiated.

 

[Van]

And here we go again with the citations of creeds and commentaries.

Look, the Bible shows very clearly and simply that He DOES NOT DETERMINE EVERYTHING. I gave several examples FROM THE BIBLE, not a CREED, or a catechism, or a confession (which I have already shown to be faulty in another thread "Major Contradiction in the 1686 Confession"), or commentary, but from the BIBLE:

If God determines ALL THINGS, EVERY THING, then He is ultimately the author of confusion, but 1 Cor 14:33 makes it clear that He is NOT.

If God Determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then He is ultimately the cause of all the temptations that men face, yet James 1:13 says that He is NOT.

If God determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then EVERY THING that He "decrees" would come to pass. 1 Samuel 23:1-14 shows clearly that it did NOT. God clearly said that Saul would "come down" when David asked-HE DID NOT, Saul "FORBARE".

If God determines ALL THINGS and EVERY THING, then He would have had it IN HIS MIND to cause Judah to sin, but Jeremiah 32:35 says that He did NOT.

There are TONS of references like this in the Bible that determinists avoid and cling to their proof texts like, "God declared all things from the beginning to the end". It says DECLARED, not FORCED ALL THINGS TO HAPPEN.

Folks need to learn to interpret passage in light of the passages that are CLEAR on a subject. The law of non contradiction shows that 2 things that are different can not both be equally true at the same time. The Bible can not say "He declares ALL THINGS from the beginning to the end" and that interpreted to mean that He determines all things, and then in another passage of Scripture, as in the four examples above that show He does not.

Instead of dealing with either an apparent contradiction in the Bible, or a conflict with ones belief system, Calvinists simply ignore and avoid the obvious verses and resort back to a confession or creed as an authority on the interpretation of deterministic sovereignty and then use humanistic reasoning to avoid the plain, ordinary and obvious verses in the Bible that are clearly in conflict with their system.

Let me chime in with Skandelon, this is a very fine effort at showing exhaustive determinism is flawed. One nit pick, my version says God declares the end from the beginning, but it is an assumption to read it as saying God declares everything in between creation and Revelation 20. The final outcome, the end, Christ is victorious, and we become more than conquerors, but Satan and his cohorts go into the lake of fire has certainly been declared from the beginning when scripture says Eve's seed will crush the serpent.

I have copy and pasted it into my files, and expect me to steal ... no pay homage to... these demonstrations of evidence in the future.

 

[Luke2427]

No it's not the same thing. God created the ability for the rock to fall.

Why? because you SAY so?

No. Its not that simple. First of all, gravity is the power of God pulling things where God wants them.

It is not some independent force God instituted and left to do it's thing.

In God we live AND MOVE and have our being.

By Him all things consist.

Deism teaches that God made natural powers, set them in motion and left them to function by their own powers- not Christianity.

There is no power but God's. Nothing moves but by God's power.

Secondly, God has always known all there is to ever know about everything.

So if God did not intend for there to be a universe in which that rock would fall, then God would have made the universe differently.

Gravity is only ever doing to any object in the universe at any given time EXACTLY what God always knew it would do to that object before he built the universe.

God built the universe to do exactly what it does because he knew exactly what it would do before he built it and if he did not want it to do something he could have built it differently.

To deny this is to embrace a Christianized form of Deism.

 

[DrJamesAch]

OH MY!!!!!

Did Herod send a squad of men to Bethlehem to kill the baby Jesus?

Did they succeed?

Would they have succeeded if Joseph had not been warned?

This is the SAME situation with David. Dave was warned and took action against the plotting of evil folks.

You are attempting to use this illustration to prove what the illustration CANNOT prove!!!!!


If your going to support your view, then use Scripture that actually does show God's decrees are unmet because of human interference.

Show (in this case) that God's foreknowledge did not prevent the capture and death of David, just as it did not prevent the death of the Baby Jesus.

The Scriptures do not contradict each other is correct.

And principle is built upon Scripture balanced with other Scripture.

NO, it is NOT the same situation that David was in. The angel did not tell Joseph in a dream, "Herod WILL kill baby Jesus", he said that Herod sought for his life, he didn't say Herod would succeed.

If your going to support your view, then use Scripture that actually does show God's decrees are unmet because of human interference.

Really? What part of God said "HE WILL COME DOWN" and then Saul NOT COMING DOWN is so hard to understand? I understand that throws such a monkey wrench into your theology that you want to ignore, but it's right there in black and white. David asked the Lord if Saul will come down, the Lord said he WILL. 1 Samuel 23:14-HE DID NOT COME DOWN, but FORBARE.

That is hardly the same scenario as Joseph. Not to mention you didn't address the other Scriptures I gave.

 

[Luke2427]

Spot on, BaptistJG, if you think the bible teaches you have a choice, rather than a non-choice (death only for non-elect, life only for elect) you are spot on. And because you made the choice, God did not predestine your choices to sin either, thus you are the author of your sin.

It's not about having or not having a "choice."

Nobody denies that people have choices.

The problem is that Arminians REFUSE, absolutely REFUSE, to ask WHY people choose what they choose.

Why did Jack choose to refuse Christ when John chose to receive Christ?

The Arminian answer- Because they CHOSE- THAT'S WHY!!!

But WHY did they choose what they chose?

Then they basically jam their fingers in their ears and start screaming and gnashing on their opponents with their teeth.

Those who don't do that introduce a fabricated, nonsensical, illogical term (as if that settles the matter)- CONTRA-CAUSAL FREE WILL!!

OH! Well that settles it!

Now if we say, "There are REASONS why people choose the things they choose," they cry, "NO! NO!! That's begging the question!!"

And they think they've won by doing nothing more than killing the debate while they had the last word.

But contra-causal anything is utter nonsense unless it is God himself.

Only GOD has no cause.

Just picking something (like free will) and claiming it has an attribute that only eternal God could have is not an argument.

It is ILLOGICAL to claim that choices do not have reasons.

It is UNREASONABLE0 and, as such, to be dismissed.

 

[Skandelon]

It's not about having or not having a "choice."

Nobody denies that people have choices.

Replace the word "choice" with its given definition and there is no doubt in my mind that you deny that people have choices. Here allow me:

"People are able to 'select between two or more possibilities.'" You, as a determinists, deny that there even are two or more possibilities, much less that people are able to willingly select other than what God has predetermined for them to select. The only Choice being made is Gods, and even that is incoherent because according to that same logic God can't select between possibilities either.