What view of justice is "carnal" and what is not?

[quantumfaith]

Good post. Even a cursory examination of arminian theology will certainly show the exaltation of man, and the diminishing of the attributes of God must by necessity proceed form that point. Non-cal theologies suffer the same fate, while many of this non-cal variety cry to not be "labelled" this allows them to continue on oblivious to and hiding from what saids beliefs label them as, and from the subsequent indictment it places on them due to their theology.

I patiently await the next assailment on Calvinist theology, and to yet again hear the proponents thereof speak again and exalt again their cherry-picked attributes while turning a blinded eye to all the Glory, and that they will yet again remind us of the power of man and choice that cripples Sovereignty until man makes a decision.

Please do explain how Arminian Theology exalts man and diminishes God. There is NOTHING man can possibly do to diminish God, it is an impossibility You mistake "assailment" for people who disagree with you, which obviously you seem to be incapable of accepting, rather, you simply declare and describe them in dismissive ways. ANYONE who does not look through your lens of theology automatically becomes a second class believer, if you even grant them "believer" status.

 

[Skandelon]

Here's what makes interacting with you a tedium. One will say the sky is blue, and you will say, but not at dusk or dawn or nighttime, or if it's too cloudy.

Well, duh! That's understood.

Kind of like when you felt the need to tell us God doesn't beget children like we do?

But, the difference here is that WE do consider motive and you implied we don't.

More than that. Judging a man's heart is more than exposing the actions they committed in earth, it's exposing the guilt they bear for things for which one cannot know by nature he could be held accountable.

Agreed. What does that have to do with establishing any view except the Calvinistic one is 'carnal?'

In fact, one by nature would say it shouldn't be so, which is what you say

Where did I say that men's motives shouldn't be judged? You are once again confusing the issues. It would only be wrong for God to judge the motive of a man that he himself determined to be. It would be like you slipping a drug into your friends drink that made him drunk and then judging him for being drunk. I have NO problem with God judging the motives of men's hearts in my system because in my system they are the original cause of their heart's condition.

They are not humble because they did not 'humble themselves' as scripture says are to do. They are without excuse in my system, where as in your system they have the perfect excuses:

1. God didn't chose me
2 God doesn't really love me
3. God determined me to be like I am from birth
4. I had no hope to be reconciled because the atonement was never bought for me.
5. I could not believe because faith wasn't granted to me

etc etc

 

[12strings]

I have NO problem with God judging the motives of men's hearts in my system because in my system they are the original cause of their heart's condition.

The big problem with this statement is that IF each and every person is the "original cause of their heart's condition" (apart from an inherited sin nature from Adam)...then why is it that EVERY single person chooses sin. Wouldn't you think if we had real complete free will, it would be more like 50/50?

They are without excuse in my system, where as in your system they have the perfect excuses:

1. God didn't chose me
2 God doesn't really love me
3. God determined me to be like I am from birth
4. I had no hope to be reconciled because the atonement was never bought for me.
5. I could not believe because faith wasn't granted to me

etc etc

Skan, you should read Ichabod Spencer's "A PASTOR'S SKETCHES: Conversations with Anxious Souls Concerning the Way of Salvation"

He was a Calvinist Presbyterian in teh 1800's who wrote the records of dozens of evangelistic conversations, and in a least one that I can remember; addresses a young man who, conviced of God's pre-determination, gives the very excuses you are proposing here. I don't really remember what his response was, but I will have to go find it and look it up. But they are all very enlightening...(there is also one where he rebukes a young man who says that he has become convinced against paedobaptism and so needs to go get baptized again, and Ichabod rebukes him quite sharply...so you have to take some of his comments with a grain of salt.)

 

[preacher4truth]

double post

 

[preacher4truth]

Another problem with this statement is it is along the edge of Socianinism. NOT in respect to the denial of the trinity, or deity of Christ, but in the fact that Jesus is a moral example, and along this line each of us also has an opportunity to NOT sin as He did not sin. This is a denial of the fact that we are born already corrupt, and already condemned before our first initial and personal sin.

One great fallacy from all of this is in the fact that if a person never sinned, and lived up to all of the Law, never breaking a commandment, then what is preventing said person from dying for the sins of others as a perfect sacrifice? One glaring problem is they are not the Son of the Living God. Yet, in this doctrine we see a grave error. There was only One and could only ever be One that could and would accomplish this, that is, fulfill all of the Law and live perfectly. God did not prophesy or predict anyone other than His Son capable of doing this. To deviate from any of this is to teach error.

The Scriptures are clear, in Adam we are already under condemnation, and already guilty, already sinful.

This then is another, yet subtle, exaltation of man that is not Biblical by any means. Some non-cals also hold to their denial of Omniscience. Many non-cal theologies incorporate some of these fallacies, albeit unaware that they do so.

 

[Skandelon]

The big problem with this statement is that IF each and every person is the "original cause of their heart's condition" (apart from an inherited sin nature from Adam)

Whoa, got to stop you there. I never said "apart from an inherited sin nature."

I believe men are born sinners, which is why God sent a savior.
I believe men are born enemies, which is why God makes an appeal for all his enemies to be reconciled.
I believe men are born slaves, which is why He sent us the TRUTH by which we may be set free.

I just deny the assumption that God's work in graciously providing all these undeserved mercies is somehow insufficient to leave all men without any excuse. Such as, "God didn't grant me faith, so I couldn't believe." God gave man all they needed and those who reject him do so by their OWN self-determined will.

 

[Iconoclast]

This has nothing to do with the topic and of course you're going to continue with this smokescreen whinning about philosophical reasoning which takes you off your game plan. But I'll offer you this: You might want to re-read Acts 17 and take note that Paul understood philosophy very well and addressed Epicurean and Stoic philosophers after they began to refute him and he did it point by point. Paul even quoted some of their teachers in his sermon so obviously he knew quite a bit about Greek philosophy and spoke with philosophical language. Oh, yes, Paul was learned man and reflected knowledge of the major philosophies in several of his letters. Paul's question-and-answer style in Romans 3:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 6:2-19 are very similar to Cynic. Philonic or Platonic thought is reflected in Hebrews. Paul quotes the Greek Philosopher Aratus in Titus 1:12 when he says "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." Apparently Paul often answered with philosophical reasoning to get the truth of his messages across to "men of reason".

Benjamin,
I can agree with you here:

note that Paul understood philosophy very well and addressed Epicurean and Stoic philosophers after they began to refute him and he did it point by point. Paul even quoted some of their teachers in his sermon so obviously he knew quite a bit about Greek philosophy and spoke with philosophical language

Paul knew about philosophy..yes...he related to those he spoke to,both in acts 17,and titus....But his conclusion was that all their idols, statues, philosphy,and learning...did not lead them to God, but was in fact bankrupt
spiritually. We know this because of several other times he speaks directly of it; it is proper to talk some science with a scientist...but very little...we are to steer them into scripture, heart issues, sin, and repentance.

[QUOTE23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence. ][/QUOTE]

1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now...you yourself allude to this here;

Paul often answered with philosophical reasoning to get the truth of his messages across to "men of reason

Yes... we are to be all things to all men..agreed.

However, that being said...you do NOT see the apostles using worldly philosophy to water down or dismiss direct quotes from scripture, or direct teaching of the grace of God.
they do not use worldly and carnal phikosophy to obscure the scripture.
I see that happen here on BB daily...it should not be so.
No one posts here or anywhere else if they believe what they post is in error.
Yet there is much error here.
If I am in error I would be open to scriptural correction...as you should be.
I do not see any teaching saying we should use worldly philosophy,or debate techniques, to come to truth.... Sola scriptura is the way to go.


ps. here is what I was "whinning about" as you like to say, hot off the press in another thread post 82,between skan and aaron...skan says this;

No. You are confusing the matter. Look at it this way:

X = God is culpable for predetermining sinful acts

Y = God is culpable for foreknowing and permitting sinful acts

You are arguing if X is true then Y is true, OR more specifically, you are saying, "if you, a non-Cal, can claim Y is not true then I, a Calvinist, can claim X is not true on the same basis."
But that doesn't follow. There is no proof, philosophically or biblically, that shows foreknowledge equals predetermination. That is a presumption you are bringing to the text. This is sometimes called the "You Too" fallacy (Tu quoque), and it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it, but the only way you can make that case is to ASSUME foreknowledge equals predetermination, when clearly it does not.

 

[Benjamin]

However, that being said...you do NOT see the apostles using worldly philosophy to water down or dismiss direct quotes from scripture, or direct teaching of the grace of God.
they do not use worldly and carnal phikosophy to obscure the scripture.

No, but I often see Calvinist "phikosophy" being used to water down scripture and dismiss direct quotes from the Bible and in this case a Calvinist that does it while ignorantly devaluing man’s sense of reason. You’re sounding rather cultic to me, Pal.

You don’t seem to realize that the very system you use to interpret the scriptures within comes from reasoning through philosophical principles about what those scriptures mean. Ironic that you call other’s philosophy “worldly” while you strictly hold to a worldly philosophical system that boxes in and force fits your every interpretation. Yet, in your conceit of your system you dispute and attempt to devalue intelligent reasoning as if you are privileged to be in a state of special spiritual enlightenment regarding your systematic force fitted interpretations. Here is some scripture for you, my friend:

(Pro 26:16) The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.

(Heb 5:14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

(1Pe 3:15) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

 

[12strings]

Whoa, got to stop you there. I never said "apart from an inherited sin nature."

I believe men are born sinners, which is why God sent a savior.
I believe men are born enemies, which is why God makes an appeal for all his enemies to be reconciled.
I believe men are born slaves, which is why He sent us the TRUTH by which we may be set free.

I just deny the assumption that God's work in graciously providing all these undeserved mercies is somehow insufficient to leave all men without any excuse. Such as, "God didn't grant me faith, so I couldn't believe." God gave man all they needed and those who reject him do so by their OWN self-determined will.

I assumed that you did believe these things, in which case how does this fit with your statement that:

...in my system they are the original cause of their heart's condition.

Would not Adam's sin be the original cause of their heart's condition?

 

[quantumfaith]

Motive is considered in both cases, it is just more fully laid bare in the sight of an all knowing God. You prove this in your next statement, when you write...

You judged my heart...my motive (wrongly, but nevertheless). To judge ones motives we look at their actions and how they typically respond. You know me well enough to know that I don't typically run from arguments, especially with you. I relish a good discussion and you, with all our disagreements, are typically willing to give as well as you get, which I actually like. With that knowledge, and the knowledge that any threads topic can be picked up anywhere else (like you did here); one objectively considering the case might judge that either I didn't close the thread in question, or did it with a different motive (like too many reported posts or getting too long and off topic etc). See how that works? Thanks for providing a case in point.

I'm fine with all that, but then again I believe they are 'in control' of their own hearts whereas you believe God determined their natures to be what they are...and that is the 'rub.'

I actually believe one can do as scripture says and "humble themselves." I can choose to humble myself, or I can choose to defend, fight, and be prideful. If I choose the former my heart will remain soft and receptive. If I choose pride my heart will grow hardened. You on the other hand believe man is more virtually totally hardened and nothing he does, chooses or resists even matters. His nature is determined from birth and can only be altered by an effectual work of God which was determined long before the person was even born. So, the verses you referenced above REALLY means, "They did it in the heart God determined beforehand for them to do, and so will answer for it on the Day of Judgment." You call it "their heart" but it is really "God's heart" because God is the one who created it to be what it is in such a way that it could not have been otherwise. It is not "theirs" at all, it is God's. What makes it "their heart" Aaron? Is it because they own it? Or because it is in their chest? What makes a person's hearts their own? I mean what if you took their heart and put it in God's chest instead, would it matter? He is the one making it do what it does any way, so what would it matter where it is?

You say that as if I could. At least be consistent and ask God to humble me.

Yes, I do see and I also see that hate is a word discribing a choice of one OVER another. One for a noble purpose and one for common use, just as we are called to hate our parents and choose to follow God... You see?

You wrongly interpret scripture to mean that God literally hates, as in not loving Esau. I suppose you think we are to not love our parents too?


Equating your sword with Paul's is again just a common immature fallacy of question begging and serves no purpose here.

Whoa, got to stop you there. I never said "apart from an inherited sin nature."

I believe men are born sinners, which is why God sent a savior.
I believe men are born enemies, which is why God makes an appeal for all his enemies to be reconciled.
I believe men are born slaves, which is why He sent us the TRUTH by which we may be set free.

I just deny the assumption that God's work in graciously providing all these undeserved mercies is somehow insufficient to leave all men without any excuse. Such as, "God didn't grant me faith, so I couldn't believe." God gave man all they needed and those who reject him do so by their OWN self-determined will.

Mega Kudos. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

Question begging. It would only be 'watered down' IF Calvinism's premise is true, which is the point up for debate. Read the account of the Fall again and tell me where it says that all men after Adam would be born unable to respond to God appeal to be reconciled. I look forward to that.

Weare ALL now found by God to be in same state as Adam after the fall, that we are sinners, whose desire is to be at emnity/war with God!

the heart is deceitfully wicked, mans tongue cannot be tamed, no one seeks after God on their own etc...

All have sinned, fallen short of glory of God...
Unless the Lord had compassion on us, not one would get saved...

Bible very clear that IF left to ourselves, we would be lost!

Agreed, but we are not left to ourselves, now are we?

Indeed not, IF a saint, as God grants us the HS to dwell in us, Jesus to be our High priest to intercede for us, and the Bible to teach/instruct us!

 

[12strings]

I just deny the assumption that God's work in graciously providing all these undeserved mercies is somehow insufficient to leave all men without any excuse. Such as, "God didn't grant me faith, so I couldn't believe." God gave man all they needed and those who reject him do so by their OWN self-determined will.

I would be that we agree with everything you have said here (based on Rom. 1) with the exception of the bolded statement. God revealed himself through nature so that we SHOULD respond in worship to him, but due to our inherited sinful nature, we do not. God has said we are without excuse, but he also says the natural man CANNOT please God.

I would additionally argue that there are many people who have not been given "everything" they need, in that they go their whole lives without hearing about Jesus, or hearing the gospel.

 

[Skandelon]

However, that being said...you do NOT see the apostles using worldly philosophy to water down or dismiss direct quotes from scripture, or direct teaching of the grace of God.
they do not use worldly and carnal phikosophy to obscure the scripture.
I see that happen here on BB daily...it should not be so.
No one posts here or anywhere else if they believe what they post is in error.
Yet there is much error here.
If I am in error I would be open to scriptural correction...as you should be.
I do not see any teaching saying we should use worldly philosophy,or debate techniques, to come to truth.... Sola scriptura is the way to go.
ps. here is what I was "whinning about" as you like to say, hot off the press in another thread post 82,between skan and aaron...skan says this;

Icon, with all due respect this type of critique is a bit uninformed. Libertarianism (free will theology) is a philosophical system, but so is Capatibilism (Calvinism). You may not engage in that aspect of the discussion, but both are rooted in their respective biblical view of scripture. And if you are not aware, Philosophy is defined as, "rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct," so whether you admit it (or are even aware of it or not) you engage in philosophical defense in almost everyone of your posts. In fact, so did the apostles.

 

[Skandelon]

I would be that we agree with everything you have said here (based on Rom. 1) with the exception of the bolded statement. God revealed himself through nature so that we SHOULD respond in worship to him, but due to our inherited sinful nature, we do not.

Which would be the perfect excuse.

"Why didn't you believe in Christ?" asks God.

"Due to my inherited sinful nature I could not believe. It wasn't granted to me. I wasn't chosen. I wasn't loved.," replies the unbeliever.

What better excuse is there in the world than that?

God has said we are without excuse, but he also says the natural man CANNOT please God.

He can't please God without faith, but with faith all things are possible.

I would additionally argue that there are many people who have not been given "everything" they need, in that they go their whole lives without hearing about Jesus, or hearing the gospel.

That is where Romans 1 comes in because even the natural revelation is sufficient for one to know God and acknowledge Him as God. And scripture seems to be clear that men are held accountable to the level of their revelation. More could be said on this point, but its a topic in and of itself.

 

[Aaron]

Kind of like ... blah ... blah ... blah ...

etc etc

You need to be reminded of your delimma. Your assertions don't exonerate God of the charges you assert Calvinism makes.

He knows of the evil to come, He creates a world that is subject to it, all the while having the power to prevent it. You want to use natural judgment to assign culpability, but deny the eminently self-evident and natural fact that if the work of your hands injures or damages another, whether intentional or not, or if you have failed to make provision for the safety of individuals on your property, you are liable.

Then you assert that your children are like the work of your hands, or your property!

There is only one conclusion one can draw if the obtuseness displayed isn't feigned:

You really have no idea of God, His power, or His will.

 

[Aaron]

He can't please God without faith, but with faith all things are possible.

So, is this faith that is given by the Spirit through the hearing of the Gospel irresistible? In other words are all men given just enough to become able to please Him by believing the Gospel whether they want it or not?

 

[quantumfaith]

So, is this faith that is given by the Spirit through the hearing of the Gospel irresistible? In other words are all men given just enough to become able to please Him by believing the Gospel whether they want it or not?

I say YES, all men are equipped with what is necessary. Some may refer to it as prevenient grace, I say it is part of the imago dei in which ALL men are created.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
However, that being said...you do NOT see the apostles using worldly philosophy to water down or dismiss direct quotes from scripture, or direct teaching of the grace of God.
they do not use worldly and carnal phikosophy to obscure the scripture.
I see that happen here on BB daily...it should not be so.
No one posts here or anywhere else if they believe what they post is in error.
Yet there is much error here.
If I am in error I would be open to scriptural correction...as you should be.
I do not see any teaching saying we should use worldly philosophy,or debate techniques, to come to truth.... Sola scriptura is the way to go.
ps. here is what I was "whinning about" as you like to say, hot off the press in another thread post 82,between skan and aaron...skan says this;

No, but I often see Calvinist "phikosophy" being used to water down scripture and dismiss direct quotes from the Bible and in this case a Calvinist that does it while ignorantly devaluing man’s sense of reason. You’re sounding rather cultic to me, Pal.

You don’t seem to realize that the very system you use to interpret the scriptures within comes from reasoning through philosophical principles about what those scriptures mean. Ironic that you call other’s philosophy “worldly” while you strictly hold to a worldly philosophical system that boxes in and force fits your every interpretation. Yet, in your conceit of your system you dispute and attempt to devalue intelligent reasoning as if you are privileged to be in a state of special spiritual enlightenment regarding your systematic force fitted interpretations. Here is some scripture for you, my friend:

(Pro 26:16) The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.

(Heb 5:14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

(1Pe 3:15) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Icon, with all due respect this type of critique is a bit uninformed. Libertarianism (free will theology) is a philosophical system, but so is Capatibilism (Calvinism). You may not engage in that aspect of the discussion, but both are rooted in their respective biblical view of scripture. And if you are not aware, Philosophy is defined as, "rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct," so whether you admit it (or are even aware of it or not) you engage in philosophical defense in almost everyone of your posts. In fact, so did the apostles.

Okay, I admit it; I've been given a lesson by Skandelon in how to be "humilified" ...is that a word? :tonofbricks:

But, I still think "Calvinist phikosophy" was funny. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

He knows of the evil to come, He creates a world that is subject to it, all the while having the power to prevent it.

What does that even mean Aaron? Read over your statement again and maybe you will see how confounding it sounds. Why would God prevent that which he 'subjects?' Foreknowledge presumes permission otherwise what is there to be foreknown? IOW, God's choice to subject the world to the choice of free moral creatures and evil's consequences is itself a matter of HIS sovereign choice. That which He specifically foreknows did not come about because he permitted IT to come about. He foreknows of the evil because evil happened and it happened because he created a world subject to freedom and evil choices. The evil originated with the creature, not the creator.

So, if you lied today at noon, that didn't happen because God foresaw you lie and permitted the lie. You lied because you freely chose to lie. You had that freedom because God subjected the world to free choice and evil. See the difference?

In your system divine foreknowledge has no meaning because things are never merely foreknown to God in a deterministic world. They are all predetermined. Permission also means nothing. Why would God need to permit what He is actively determining to do?

If God determined the nature of Jeffrey Dahmer so that his choices could not have been otherwise then God is not merely foreseeing and permitting Dahmer's acts, instead God is originating and determining Dahmer's acts.

You want to use natural judgment to assign culpability,

As apposed to the supernatural kind? Only God could pass judgement supernaturally, we are left to our human (God given...i.e. 'natural') devices... as guided by the scripture, of course. And to claim your view is the biblical one and thus not 'carnal' like mine, is once again just question begging.

Then you assert that your children are like the work of your hands, or your property!

Actually it was your assertion that mankind was like God's property while I was attempting to argue that to God mankind is more like our children in regard to their independent will and thus individual culpability. If the robot I created (or even my dog) kills a neighbor kid I could go to jail. If my grown child kills a neighborhood kid he goes to jail.

Now apply that to the view of man's culpability. We KNOW that men are held accountable (go to jail/hell) for their sins, so that is a given, thus it is reasonable we are more like the 'grown children' (my assertion) in the analogy than we are like robots, dogs or other such property (your assertion). If YOU want to suggest we are more like property then you need to explain why God wouldn't be held accountable his properties failings, but that is not my premise, its yours. Why would I need to explain the failings of YOUR premise?

You really have no idea of God, His power, or His will.

And in a deterministic existence, whose fault is that exactly? God must have like you better and decided to give you a better brain and heart, right? You are so blessed. All hail Aaron, the favored one!

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, with all due respect this type of critique is a bit uninformed. Libertarianism (free will theology) is a philosophical system, but so is Capatibilism (Calvinism). You may not engage in that aspect of the discussion, but both are rooted in their respective biblical view of scripture. And if you are not aware, Philosophy is defined as, "rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct," so whether you admit it (or are even aware of it or not) you engage in philosophical defense in almost everyone of your posts. In fact, so did the apostles.

Skan,

You may not engage in that aspect of the discussion,

That is correct...I reject both terms.....they are outside the realm of scripture ,or scriptural teaching.

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem. This philosophical problem concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

There is no free will...it does not exist...so I reject this out of hand,and for the most part, i try to avoid these discussions as i believe they are unbiblical to start with......


Free moral agent...yes ....free will no...

Benjamin had this right ,it is a waste of time to discuss this with me....it is wrong right from the start....:thumbsup:

in many of your posts you start with an assumption that this is a given......not in my world!