Libertarian Free Will is an Extra-Biblical Commitment

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

I was able to get to this sooner than I had thought.

Brian, I read that post you provided a link to, and I also read your examples, "Level 1" and "Level 2"

I really appreciate this. The fact that you are trying to understand me before criticizing my position means a lot to me. Thank you! :thumbs:

In my opinion, you are approaching this question with a pre-bias. You are accepting Calvinist doctrine that unsaved man has a free will, but that will will always decide against God, and that an unsaved man's heart must be changed by God and given new desires before a man has the ability to choose for God.

Winman, you have described my position perfectly! I also agree with you that I do have a bias – so do you, I might add.

All I can do is offer you examples from scripture. The examples I will show you will not show that an unsaved man can choose for good, they will show a saved, righteous person can choose for evil.

Fair enough.

Here is when God gave man his first rule or law. Adam was told he could freely eat of every tree of the garden with one exception, that being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He was not free to eat of it. So, if Calvinism is true, Adam and Eve could not have eaten of this tree. They were created sinless and perfect. So, if your theory is correct, neither Adam, Eve, Satan, or the angels could have decided for evil. But that is not what we see. Adam and Eve sinned, as well as Satan and many of the other angels. So obviously they had freewill and could choose good or evil.

Winman, I really appreciate this. You seem to be arguing that Adam, Eve, Satan and the angels had LFW because if this was not the case, then Adam, Eve, Satan and the angels could not have sinned. But since they sinned, then they had LFW. Below is the argument laid out more formally. (Note: I have taken the liberty to simplify it while trying not to lose the content of the argument.)

Premise 1: If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.
Premise 2: Adam did sin.
Conclusion: Adam did have LFW.

Winman, this is a valid argument! Logicians call this argument form Modus Tollens. Before I comment on the argument, I want to make sure this captures the argument you are actually making. (I may have misunderstood you.) If it is wrong, please feel free to correct things as you see fit.

I am going to stop here for now. You have a lot of great things you said in your post to me, and I want to get to all of it. Is it ok if we just take it piece by piece? As such, I will wait for you to tell me whether or not I understand you so far. If you give me the green light, then I will comment on the above argument, and then move to the next point you made in your post. Again, I really appreciated your last post to me.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Winman]

Premise 1: If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.
Premise 2: Adam did sin.
Conclusion: Adam did have LFW.

Winman, this is a valid argument! Logicians call this argument form Modus Tollens. Before I comment on the argument, I want to make sure this captures the argument you are actually making. (I may have misunderstood you.) If it is wrong, please feel free to correct things as you see fit.

Brian, yes, you understand me correctly. What I am saying is that when Adam and Eve were created, they were considered "very good" as God deemed all his creation in Gen 1:31. Therefore, they would have no inclination to sin. And if they did not have a free will to choose they could not sin as they would be limited in their choices by their sinless nature that they received from God himself. They were not born of sinful parents as we were, not that I believe we inherit a sinful nature from our parents. I just want to take that out of the argument.

Now, Archangel has said that Adam and Eve did have free will and this is what Calvinists believe. But they lost their free will after the fall. I personally do not see this in scripture, plus it does not make sense to me for God to plea with sinners to choose good over evil when they cannot possibly do so. I do believe we are all depraved and very sinful, but I believe we retained free will. I think even sinful man recognizes good, and can choose it if persuaded by the word of God. I do not think God forces a man to believe, but convinces or persuades. I do not believe a man can come to God without God's influence from the scriptures FIRST.

I'll let you get back.

 

[Winman]

Actually, that is not the answer. If that was the answer, Paul would have said that. He didn't. Instead he says "Who are YOU, oh man, to answer back to God?"

He then goes on to say that God has the right to make one vessel for good (honorable) purposes, and another for bad (dishonorable) purposes.

THAT is the answer; you know, the one from scripture...

This is the answer I've seen from several Calvinists, that God is sovereign and has the right to make one person believe, and make another not believe. The problem I have with this is that the scriptures clearly give the reasons God chooses to show mercy on one man and wrath on another.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God clearly gives the reasons for showing his wrath to some men. God says he has revealed himself to all men so that none have excuse. These men know of God but glorify him not, are not thankful, are vain in their own imaginations, professing themselves to be wise, changed the glory of God into an image, they were unclean through the lusts of their own hearts, they changed God's truth into a lie, they worshipped the creature more than the Creator....

You can read for yourself.

I have heard Calvinists say God does all things for his own pleasure, but the scriptures say God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

In both these verses God says he has no pleasure that the wicked should die and desires they turn from sin and live. Therefore, it is God's will that all should live. If God determines if a man believes or not, then all would be saved. But all men are not saved, so therefore man must have his own free will and the ability to resist God's grace.

 

[Havensdad]

This is the answer I've seen from several Calvinists, that God is sovereign and has the right to make one person believe, and make another not believe. The problem I have with this is that the scriptures clearly give the reasons God chooses to show mercy on one man and wrath on another.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Keep reading.....remember the Bible's chapter and verse divisions were added later, and are not inspired...

Rom 2:1 Therefore(i.e. because of what He just said) thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Pauls ENTIRE ARGUMENT here, in chapter 1 and the beginning of Chapter 2, is that the reason judgment of others is excluded is because WE are just as bad. "Ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" is US (believers) to.

The entire point of the gospel, is that god saved some even though they were no less deserving of hell, out of His mercy. You are trying to change it to Him choosing some because they were not as bad..

God clearly gives the reasons for showing his wrath to some men. God says he has revealed himself to all men so that none have excuse. These men know of God but glorify him not, are not thankful, are vain in their own imaginations, professing themselves to be wise, changed the glory of God into an image, they were unclean through the lusts of their own hearts, they changed God's truth into a lie, they worshipped the creature more than the Creator....

Again, read on to Chapter 2, verse 1. Paul says we are ALL guilty of those things, so that could not possibly be God's criterion: no one would make it.

You can read for yourself.

Go ahead. And don't stop where it's convenient next time.

I have heard Calvinists say God does all things for his own pleasure, but the scriptures say God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

In both these verses God says he has no pleasure that the wicked should die and desires they turn from sin and live. Therefore, it is God's will that all should live. If God determines if a man believes or not, then all would be saved. But all men are not saved, so therefore man must have his own free will and the ability to resist God's grace.

Not so.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

God raised Pharaoh up, for the explicit purpose of destroying Him, and showing His wrath. God hardened Pharaoh's heart and WOULD NOT let him repent.

Psa 59:8 But you, O LORD, laugh at them; you hold all the nations in derision.

Psalm 2:4-9: “The Lord that sits in the heavens shall LAUGH [at rebellious men]: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak unto them in His WRATH, and VEX THEM IN HIS SORE DISPLEASURE... [and Christ shall] break them with a rod of iron: Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Pro 1:24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
Pro 1:25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,
Pro 1:27 when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you.

Please note that the verses above, about God laughing while destroying the wicked, according to Romans 1, applies equally to us, before Christ.

NOTHING IN US secured our salvation: God's mercy, through the giving of saving faith, is all that saved us. NONE of us, ALL of Him. Sola Deo Gloria!!

 

[Winman]

You missed the entire point. God has REASON to show his wrath on sinners. I completely understand I am a sinner as well, but because I have believed on Christ my sins are forgiven.

And God did not raise up Pharaoh to destroy him without a cause or reason. God knew beforehand that Pharaoh was an unbelieveably obstinate person and would not repent even when he had seen many miracles by God.

Exo 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

Exo 10:3 And Moses and Aaron came in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? let my people go, that they may serve me.

Pharaoh is the great example of a person who loves their sin and will not repent no matter how much light God shows them. It would be hard to imagine the most hardened sinner who would not repent after seeing the amazing plagues God performed on Egypt before his very eyes. So Pharaoh was deserving of being destroyed.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Notice two words in this verse, "longsuffering" and "fitted". God was very longsuffering with Pharaoh. Pharaoh had every chance to repent. At one point he seemed very close and admitted his sin.

Exo 9:27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the LORD is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.
28 Intreat the LORD (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer.

But even Moses knew the character of Pharaoh. He knew as soon as the plague was stopped Pharaoh would refuse to let the Israelites go.

Exo 9:29 And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD'S.
30 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God.

And sure enough, as soon as God stopped the plague, Pharaoh went back on his word.

Exo 9:33 And Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread abroad his hands unto the LORD: and the thunders and hail ceased, and the rain was not poured upon the earth.
34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.
35 And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the LORD had spoken by Moses.

So, you see here, the scriptures say Pharaoh sinned yet more and hardened his own heart.

If it was God's will that Pharaoh's heart be hardened, then it could not be a sin. The scriptures say God never tempts any man to sin.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

So God did not cause Pharaoh to harden his own heart, but God knew that Pharaoh would become more stubborn and obstinate with each plague.

And this can be seen in human experience. Often when you show a person that they are in error they will become very angry and obstinate. And the more you try to reason with them, the more stubborn and obstinate they become. This is what is meant when God said he would harden Pharaoh's heart. If God caused Pharaoh to sin (as the scriptures say he did), then God would be the author of sin.

So, in Romans 1, God is especially speaking of sinners who will not repent. Yes, we are all sinners, but many men will repent when the gospel is preached to them. But some men love their sin and hate God and will not repent.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

As I wrote before, Calvinists cannot give a reason why God chooses to show mercy on some, and wrath on others. But the scriptures clearly show that God has very good reasons to show his wrath on those fitted for destruction.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

Brian, yes, you understand me correctly.

Good! OK, here is your argument…

Premise 1: If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.
Premise 2: Adam did sin.
Conclusion: Adam did have LFW.

This is a valid argument. As such, if it is sound (i.e., the premises are true), then the conclusion follows necessarily, and I would count this as a good argument for LFW. It is my position that premise 1 is false, but in your last post to me you provided a good argument for why premise 1 is true. You said…

What I am saying is that when Adam and Eve were created, they were considered "very good" as God deemed all his creation in Gen 1:31. Therefore, they would have no inclination to sin. And if they did not have a free will to choose they could not sin as they would be limited in their choices by their sinless nature that they received from God himself. They were not born of sinful parents as we were, not that I believe we inherit a sinful nature from our parents.

You make a couple of arguments here. Here is my understanding of your position based on what was said above…

Argument A

Premise 1A: If Adam was created in such a way that God said it was “very good”, then Adam would have no inclination to sin when he was created.
Premise 2A: Adam was created in such a way that God said it was “very good”.
Conclusion A: Adam would have no inclination to sin when he was created.

Argument B

Premise 1B: If Adam would have no inclination to sin when He was created, then if Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.
Premise 2B: Adam would have no inclination to sin when he was created. (Conclusion A)
Conclusion B: If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin. (Premise 1 of the original argument.)

Winman, this is excellent argumentation on your part. Both arguments A and B are valid, and they lead to your premise 1 in the original argument. Before I comment on arguments A and B, I want to make sure I have understood your argument and represented it accurately. Do arguments A and B capture your meaning in the above quoted paragraph?

Brian

 

[Winman]

Brian

Yes, so far so good. Although I am not used to debating in this fashion, and am not knowledgeable about forms of argument as you are. But I think we are on the same page so far.

This is kind of fun. :tongue3:

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

Yes, so far so good. Although I am not used to debating in this fashion, and am not knowledgeable about forms of argument as you are.

The only reason I do this is to make sure we are clearly understanding each other. By making arguments very explicit it helps to eliminate misunderstandings. You intuitively understand proper argument forms (because you are using them); so, do not worry that you do not know the technical names of these forms. That is not what is important.

But I think we are on the same page so far.

Rest assured, if at any point I am not representing you properly you can just point it out, and I will make the change. So, by telling me that I am understanding you correctly, this does not automacticlly lock you into a position. It just gives us a more solid foundation to work from.

I'll get back to this a little later today, Lord willing.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

I think we are in agreement that at this point your full argument can be broken down as follows:

Argument A

Premise 1A: If Adam was created in such a way that God said it was “very good”, then Adam would have no inclination to sin when he was created.
Premise 2A: Adam was created in such a way that God said it was “very good”.
Conclusion A: Adam would have no inclination to sin when he was created.
____________________

Argument B

Premise 1B: If Adam would have no inclination to sin when He was created, then if Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.
Premise 2B: Adam would have no inclination to sin when he was created. (Conclusion A)
Conclusion B: If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.
____________________

Argument C

Premise 1C: If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin. (Conclusion B)
Premise 2C: Adam did sin.
Conclusion C: Adam did have LFW.
____________________

This is a very good argument chain ending with Adam having LFW. I agree with premise 2C, but I think premise 1C is false. Since premise 1C is based on argument B, then let's look there. I agree with premise 2B in the sense that the moment God created Adam he had no inclination to sin. This means that I agree with your argument A when understood that it is speaking of the moment Adam was created. As such, I think premise 1B is false. If premise 1B is false, then conclusion B does not follow, and this means conclusion C does not follow. When I say that I think Premise 1B is false, then I am saying that I think the following is true…

Brian’s Proposition (BP): If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would still sin.

In order for Premise 1B to be true, then BP must be false. Let me explain how it is possible for BP to be true in what I call the “Bondage of the Will Model”.

The Bondage of the Will Model

(Note: I take full responsibility for this model. As such, this model should not be confused with Luther's "Bondage of the Will," or Edwards' "Freedom of the Will," Calvin, Augustine, etc...)

Mankind has always been free (and always will be free) to choose what his heart wants most. It is in this sense that I can say mankind’s will is free to choose; however, this freedom to choose is such that mankind not only is able to choose what his heart wants most, but mankind *must* choose what his heart wants most. This ‘must’ in terms of choosing what the heart wants most is what I call the “bondage of the will.”

God supervenes over what the heart wants. He is able to turn it one way or another as He sees fit. The consequence of this is that God can and does direct actions through willing hearts by affecting the disposition of the heart (because mankind must do what the heart most wants when faced with a choice). As such, Adam sinned willingly in the sense that he did what he most wanted. However, his heart had already been affected by God so that what Adam most wanted was to eat of the fruit. From this it follows that God does ordain the sinful actions of men by affecting their hearts. How God affects hearts is a mystery to me; however, that he does do this does enjoy Scriptural support (cf., Proverbs 21:1).

Winman, I will stop here. I think Premise 1B is false because BP is true. I think BP is true because I believe God governs the heart. In light of all of this, can you provide support for your premise 1B by arguing for why God could not affect Adam’s heart prior to his eating of the apple?

Warm Regards,

Brian
P.S. This is precisely the kind of interaction I was hoping for in this thread. You have brought a terrific argument to the table against my position (even though in the end I do not think it will stand ).

 

[Winman]

I do not agree with this part of your argument.

However, his heart had already been affected by God so that what Adam most wanted was to eat of the fruit.

This cannot be true, because the scriptures say God never tempts any man to sin.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

We know that it was a sin when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree. Therefore God could not have put this desire into his heart.

Therefore it follows logically that the desire that God put into Adam's heart was that he not eat the fruit of the tree. This is the only other option available.

But Adam did eat the fruit.

Therefore Adam has his own free will and can override the desires that God put in his heart. Adam has his own independent desires that he will obey over the desires God puts in his heart.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

However, his heart had already been affected by God so that what Adam most wanted was to eat of the fruit.

This cannot be true, because the scriptures say God never tempts any man to sin.

This is a good rejoinder, Winman. I would argue that God did not tempt Adam to sin. God's turning of Adam's heart is not the same as God tempting Adam. Regarding this you say...

We know that it was a sin when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree. Therefore God could not have put this desire into his heart.

I understand the Scriptures to teach that God does influence people's heart for evil to accomplish His own purposes (cf., Gen. 50:20, Ps. 105:17, Acts 4:27-28, Romans 1:24-ff). If my understanding is correct, then God could have affected Adam's heart in such a way so that Adam would willingly take of the fruit of the tree and eat.

It looks as if our discussion about LFW is taking an interesting turn. It seems as if the question as to whether or not God ordains sin has come to the forefront. Here seems to be the situation: If God does not ordain sin, then Adam had to have LFW to account for his eating of the apple. If God does ordain sin, then LFW is not necessary to account for his eating of the fruit. Do you think that is a fair assessment of where we are now?

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. I am really beginning to enjoy our discussion.

 

[Winman]

Here seems to be the situation: If God does not ordain sin, then Adam had to have LFW to account for his eating of the apple. If God does ordain sin, then LFW is not necessary to account for his eating of the fruit. Do you think that is a fair assessment of where we are now?

Yes, and there is no simple answer for this question. It will be interesting.

I will not be on the computer much till the weekend, I have to work another shift to cover for an employee who recently left. But I will be back when I can.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

I will not be on the computer much till the weekend, I have to work another shift to cover for an employee who recently left. But I will be back when I can.

No problem. I am not planning on going anywhere, and we can go as slow as we want. Here is a just a quick recap of where we are.
______________________________________

THE RECAP

Given your argument for Adam having LFW prior to the fall, we find that the key premise under consideration is...

Premise 1B: If Adam would have no inclination to sin when He was created, then if Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.

I agree that Adam had no inclination to sin the moment he was created. As such, our positions can be stated as follows:

Winman's Position (WP): If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.
Brian's Position (BP): If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam still would sin.

I have proposed that BP could be true if God ordains sin. If God does not ordain sin, then BP is false. If BP is false, then I will count your premise 1B as established. If BP is shown to be possibly true, then premise 1B will not have yet been established.
_______________________________________

In my next post, I will assume the burden of arguing that God does ordain some sinful acts of man.

Brian

 

[Allan]

Hello Winman,



No problem. I am not planning on going anywhere, and we can go as slow as we want. Here is a just a quick recap of where we are.
______________________________________

THE RECAP

Given your argument for Adam having LFW prior to the fall, we find that the key premise under consideration is...

Premise 1B: If Adam would have no inclination to sin when He was created, then if Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.

I agree that Adam had no inclination to sin the moment he was created. As such, our positions can be stated as follows:

Winman's Position (WP): If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam would not sin.
Brian's Position (BP): If Adam did not have LFW, then Adam still would sin.

I have proposed that BP could be true if God ordains sin. If God does not ordain sin, then BP is false. If BP is false, then I will count your premise 1B as established. If BP is shown to be possibly true, then premise 1B will not have yet been established.
_______________________________________

In my next post, I will assume the burden of arguing that God does ordain some sinful acts of man.

Brian

In order to keep confusion down you might want to define the term 'ordain' as this will soon become a point of contension if not a point of confusion soon enough for you both.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Allan,

Thank you for the suggestion. It had not entered my mind that I would need to do so. Can you explain why you think this would be needed?

Thanks,

Brian
P.S. Why do you quote whole posts to do a simple one sentence reply - especially since the post you were reponsing to was immediately prior? No big deal, I am just curious.

 

[Allan]

Hello Allan,

Thank you for the suggestion. It had not entered my mind that I would need to do so. Can you explain why you think this would be needed?

There are differing views on what the term 'ordain' entails with respect to theological constructs. It is much the same with term 'determine' (ex. God determines certain things).

P.S. Why do you quote whole posts to do a simple one sentence reply - especially since the post you were reponsing to was immediately prior? No big deal, I am just curious.

I didn't think about it. I was commenting off of your post so I hit the quote button.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Allan,

Can you give me the differing views so that I can identify how I am using the term?

Brian

 

[Allan]

Hello Allan,

Can you give me the differing views so that I can identify how I am using the term?

Brian

Hello again Brian,

Why not just define 'your' usage so that Winman can either agree or disagree and then give you his rendering. He 'might' have the same view you do but in order to keep confusion that might crop up to a minimum, just take a moment and explain.

Trust me, it will help as the conversation continues. I have debated enough to know, not only on here but with many over views, that unless certain things are properly understood in the beginning (or at necessary points in between) it leads to back tracking to find out where you guys lost understanding. This is one such place where such an occuance can usually happen.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Allan,

When I respond to Winman with the start of my arguments I will supply a definition for ordain. Again, thank you for the recommendation.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Allan]

No Problem :thumbs: