There is no Free Will PERIOD

[BNR32FAN]

In spite of all your attempts, the "fallacies" you think inherent in the Reformed view of things all have their own fallacies.

Bear in mind, in responding, that God upholds all things by the power of his word. In him we live and move and have our being. Thus, there is nothing that can happen apart from his causation; whether his causation is merely deistic or eminently immanent, he caused everything to come to be. Thus, your choices are caused by him. You have so far been unable to reason that away, though your soul may cry, "foul".

Where do you get the idea that “nothing can happen apart from His causation”?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You have me confused with someone else.

Really because you liked Mark’s post indicating that you agree with his explanation of causation.

In spite of all your attempts, the "fallacies" you think inherent in the Reformed view of things all have their own fallacies.

Bear in mind, in responding, that God upholds all things by the power of his word. In him we live and move and have our being. Thus, there is nothing that can happen apart from his causation; whether his causation is merely deistic or eminently immanent, he caused everything to come to be. Thus, your choices are caused by him. You have so far been unable to reason that away, though your soul may cry, "foul".

This is precisely the theology I was referring to in my reply to you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thus, there is nothing that can happen apart from his causation; whether his causation is merely deistic or eminently immanent, he caused everything to come to be. Thus, your choices are caused by him. You have so far been unable to reason that away, though your soul may cry, "foul".

I caused my son to be born, does that mean I caused everything he decides to do? Does it mean that he has no choice in what he will do because I caused his birth?

 

[Clare73]

Really because you liked Mark’s post indicating that you agree with his explanation of causation.

Is that the only thing it could indicate, to the exclusion of all others?

 

[Mark Quayle]

We’re not discussing what God intended, we’re discussing whether or not people choose their own fate. God foreseeing someone being disobedient and allowing it to take place then punishing them for it is a completely different situation than God directly causing or making someone disobey then punishing them for it, especially when that punishment is the most severe punishment that anyone can ever receive. There’s nothing temporary about being thrown into the lake of fire.

God merely foreseeing it implies it happens outside of his causation, which implies that there are some things outside of his control, which is heresy. "First Cause", in simple logic, means that all else is caused.

And if, even in your construction, God "foreknew" (according to your definition), yet created anyway, full knowing what would come of it, he MEANT for it to happen.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We’re not discussing what God intended, we’re discussing whether or not people choose their own fate. God foreseeing someone being disobedient and allowing it to take place then punishing them for it is a completely different situation than God directly causing or making someone disobey then punishing them for it, especially when that punishment is the most severe punishment that anyone can ever receive. There’s nothing temporary about being thrown into the lake of fire.

God merely foreseeing it implies it happens outside of his causation, which implies that there are some things outside of his control, which is heresy. "First Cause", in simple logic, means that all else is caused.

And if, even in your construction, God "foreknew" (according to your definition), yet created anyway, full knowing what would come of it, he MEANT for it to happen. Thus, rather obviously, the fact that we do choose does not oppose his causation.

And, to repeat what has been stated repeatedly, if God is Creator, (and yes, he is), then nothing else, not your ability to choose nor the things you choose, can even be, except by his creating whereby they are established fact.

How anyone can imagine that anybody but God can choose, apart from being caused to do so, boggles the mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

BNR32FAN said:
Really because you liked Mark’s post indicating that you agree with his explanation of causation.

Is that the only thing it could indicate, to the exclusion of all others?

@BNR32FAN , going by some of the logic by which you interpret Scripture, I would have thought that the fact she did not react with "agree" would imply that she did not agree!

 

[BNR32FAN]

God merely foreseeing it implies it happens outside of his causation, which implies that there are some things outside of his control, which is heresy. "First Cause", in simple logic, means that all else is caused.

Maybe He didn’t want everything to be under His control. Would you want your loved ones to be under your control?

And if, even in your construction, God "foreknew" (according to your definition), yet created anyway, full knowing what would come of it, he MEANT for it to happen.

He knew everyone except Noah and his family would be evil but He certainly didn’t enjoy it. It wasn’t something what He wanted them to do but it’s something He knew they would do.

 

[BNR32FAN]

God merely foreseeing it implies it happens outside of his causation, which implies that there are some things outside of his control, which is heresy. "First Cause", in simple logic, means that all else is caused.

No it doesn’t mean that at all when you include the variable of free will. Free will adds an element of uncertainty to causation. Explain Luke 13:6-9 that’s a perfect biblical example of how free will adds an element of uncertainty.

“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭13‬:‭6‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Here we have Jesus trying to save the tree and yet the outcome of the tree is uncertain. Why is that?

 

[Rose_bud]

But you still accepted. Nobody accepted on your behalf, nobody manipulated, forced or coerced you.

That's the point, I never accepted anything.

So you haven't accepted the work Christ has done on your behalf?

God revealed to my heart that my behavior was sinful. I repented, asked forgiveness, and been following Christ since then.

Interesting. However, your actions/response of repenting, asking forgiveness, and following Christ demonstrate your cooperation with God's work. He did not do these things Himself; someone had to respond. I'm assuming you did. I'm not saying you earned salvation, but rather that your response was a necessary part of receiving God's gift.

Until the revelation is accepted, acknowledged, and integrated, it remains only something revealed – it never becomes a lived reality. Even though God initiated, empowered, and compelled, our part is to turn towards Him, to ask forgiveness, and obey Him (these are all things we do in response). Nobody can do this on your behalf; nobody can force, manipulate, or coerce. That's how covenants work: in Christ, by faith, you agree to uphold the terms and teachings of the covenant. Therefore, you become accountable for how you appropriate His gift. What we do have is the Holy Spirit of power who indwells us to uphold the covenant. Yet as Christians we can quench the Spirit, by disobedience or unbelief.

I believe I have shared according to Scripture. The passages you presented as arguments, I have dealt with as faithfully as I could, according to their context. To which I received no counter argument. Therefor I think this discussion has reached its point. The responsibility is now yours to do with it as you see fit. Although I am also aware that you may not see this as your responsibility, since you believe that you are not responsible for your choices. Either way, may God guide you as you pursue His truth.

 

[Dan1988]

There is no free will in a world that is already predestined.
(As vindicated by countless fulfillments and prophecies)
Even some Physicists agree in the Universe of Destiny
As we cannot live in both Universes (Free will & Destiny) at once.


Therefore,
Every thought we had was predestined thinking;
Every choice we made, was predestined choosing.
&
Every thought we have is predestined thinking,
Every choice we make, is predestined choosing.
&
Every thought we make is destined thinking
Every choice we have, is destined choosing.
&
Every choice [thought] is destined.
Every thought [choosing] is destined.

The real question is why does everyone think opposite?
That, there is a choice?

It could be because every thought we think we have, is not really ours.
If we are predestined individuals under Christ, then we have Hive Mind with Christ.
99.9% of all our thoughts are projected into us by our surroundings or by the past.
Therefore, the solution is to do the opposite of the problem.
Bring our thinking to the present moment called NOW, and isolate ourselves. Matthew 6:6
In that instantaneous and infinite moment called NOW, with zero distractions;
Do we find the Peace of the Supreme.
With the Supreme moment, comes a Supreme awareness of a Supreme intelligence.
This Supreme Intelligence and Supreme Moment is of God.

All Servants who have read this far have been predestined to do so.

I took your advice and tried to bring my thinking to the present moment and isolate myself. But I didn't have that experience you had, because I couldn't empty my mind like a ascendant Zen Master can.

Would you recommend that I take some lessons on how to meditate. I just couldn't achieve that NOW moment without any distractions. It's strange how Jesus never taught His Disciples this method of achieving a higher Supreme conscience.

 

[Neogaia777]

No it doesn’t mean that at all when you include the variable of free will. Free will adds an element of uncertainty to causation. Explain Luke 13:6-9 that’s a perfect biblical example of how free will adds an element of uncertainty.

If it's uncertain, then it is unknown (until it becomes known/knowable/fully known, etc).

This is true even for a God, etc.

No being is exempt from this very basic simple rule/law of very, very basic mathematics, etc.

If all possibilities are not always 100% and 0%, but are some other number, then they are not completely knowable yet, etc.

And if they are always 100% and 0%, then there was never any other kind of possibility of it happening any other way. Hence, no true free will, etc.

It's very, very basic math, etc.

If they are always known, then they are always 100% and 0%, and if they are some other number, then they are not fully known or knowable yet, etc. But are only knowable with 100% certainty, only after the fact fully, etc.

Not even a God is exempt from this, etc.

So if He knows, and those are always 100% certain for everything, then there cannot be a such thing as true free will in that case, etc. And if they are some other possibility/number, then he doesn't/hasn't always known all about everything always, etc.

It's also very, very simple basic logic also, beyond the math, etc. No being can know all with 100% certainty, and have always known it always, and there be such a thing as true free will, etc. And the only other possibility is that maybe he doesn't know all of everything yet, but can only know it for 100% sure, only after it passes just like the rest of us, etc. But I do think that there is a God higher than all of us who has always known though, etc.

Here we have Jesus trying to save the tree and yet the outcome of the tree is uncertain. Why is that?

Because he didn't know.

But he was confident that God the Heavenly Father (both his and our True Father), did already know, etc.

God Bless.

 

[zoidar]

There is no free will in a world that is already predestined.
(As vindicated by countless fulfillments and prophecies)
Even some Physicists agree in the Universe of Destiny
As we cannot live in both Universes (Free will & Destiny) at once.


Therefore,
Every thought we had was predestined thinking;
Every choice we made, was predestined choosing.
&
Every thought we have is predestined thinking,
Every choice we make, is predestined choosing.
&
Every thought we make is destined thinking
Every choice we have, is destined choosing.
&
Every choice [thought] is destined.
Every thought [choosing] is destined.

The real question is why does everyone think opposite?
That, there is a choice?

It could be because every thought we think we have, is not really ours.
If we are predestined individuals under Christ, then we have Hive Mind with Christ.
99.9% of all our thoughts are projected into us by our surroundings or by the past.
Therefore, the solution is to do the opposite of the problem.
Bring our thinking to the present moment called NOW, and isolate ourselves. Matthew 6:6
In that instantaneous and infinite moment called NOW, with zero distractions;
Do we find the Peace of the Supreme.
With the Supreme moment, comes a Supreme awareness of a Supreme intelligence.
This Supreme Intelligence and Supreme Moment is of God.

All Servants who have read this far have been predestined to do so.

I took your advice and tried to bring my thinking to the present moment and isolate myself. But I didn't have that experience you had, because I couldn't empty my mind like a ascendant Zen Master can.

Would you recommend that I take some lessons on how to meditate. I just couldn't achieve that NOW moment without any distractions. It's strange how Jesus never taught His Disciples this method of achieving a higher Supreme conscience.

Zen does not lead us to God, quite the opposite! One reason Jesus never taught it. It leads you to Pantheism.

 

[Neogaia777]

If it's uncertain, then it is unknown (until it becomes known/knowable/fully known, etc).

This is true even for a God, etc.

No being is exempt from this very basic simple rule/law of very, very basic mathematics, etc.

If all possibilities are not always 100% and 0%, but are some other number, then they are not completely knowable yet, etc.

And if they are always 100% and 0%, then there was never any other kind of possibility of it happening any other way. Hence, no true free will, etc.

It's very, very basic math, etc.

If they are always known, then they are always 100% and 0%, and if they are some other number, then they are not fully known or knowable yet, etc. But are only knowable with 100% certainty, only after the fact fully, etc.

Not even a God is exempt from this, etc.

So if He knows, and those are always 100% certain for everything, then there cannot be a such thing as true free will in that case, etc. And if they are some other possibility/number, then he doesn't/hasn't always known all about everything always, etc.

It's also very, very simple basic logic also, beyond the math, etc. No being can know all with 100% certainty, and have always known it always, and there be such a thing as true free will, etc. And the only other possibility is that maybe he doesn't know all of everything yet, but can only know it for 100% sure, only after it passes just like the rest of us, etc. But I do think that there is a God higher than all of us who has always known though, etc.

Because he didn't know.

But he was confident that God the Heavenly Father (both his and our True Father), did already know, etc.

God Bless.

When Jesus first got this knowledge about this logical contradiction, was when he very first started having true revelations about both his and our true Father, etc. He probably got it a lot earlier on than the rest of us though, and so was probably able to proceed a lot farther faster in it than any of us ever have so far, etc.

This particular revelation is almost like a door between two different realities almost, etc. But it's very, very important if you want the same kind of knowledge Jesus had, or want to proceed/progress/grow in the same kind of way that Jesus did, or have the same kind of knowledge/revelations that he had, or was having, etc.

Some slam this door shut, and then lock it up tight, and then throw away the key, and then try really, really hard to expunge it or completely wipe it away from their minds completely as fast as they can though, because they are afraid, etc.

But I offer my help to all of those who are afraid, ok. Just DM/PM me on here about it if you want to, ok.

Just don't let this knowledge/revelation slip, ok.

Because that's very, very easy to do, with life and all it's distractions and all, etc.

God Bless.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If it's uncertain, then it is unknown (until it becomes known/knowable/fully known, etc).

This is true even for a God, etc.

No being is exempt from this very basic simple rule/law of very, very basic mathematics, etc.

If all possibilities are not always 100% and 0%, but are some other number, then they are not completely knowable yet, etc.

And if they are always 100% and 0%, then there was never any other kind of possibility of it happening any other way. Hence, no true free will, etc.

It's very, very basic math, etc.

If they are always known, then they are always 100% and 0%, and if they are some other number, then they are not fully known or knowable yet, etc. But are only knowable with 100% certainty, only after the fact fully, etc.

Not even a God is exempt from this, etc.

So if He knows, and those are always 100% certain for everything, then there cannot be a such thing as true free will in that case, etc. And if they are some other possibility/number, then he doesn't/hasn't always known all about everything always, etc.

It's also very, very simple basic logic also, beyond the math, etc. No being can know all with 100% certainty, and have always known it always, and there be such a thing as true free will, etc. And the only other possibility is that maybe he doesn't know all of everything yet, but can only know it for 100% sure, only after it passes just like the rest of us, etc. But I do think that there is a God higher than all of us who has always known though, etc.

Because he didn't know.

But he was confident that God the Heavenly Father (both his and our True Father), did already know, etc.

God Bless.

Luke 13:6-9 isn’t about whether or not God knows. You’re missing the entire point. It isn’t that God doesn’t know the outcome, of course He knows the outcome of each individual. The point is that the message makes it crystal clear that God is trying to save people and some will be saved and some won’t be saved. It clearly shows that not everyone whom Jesus is giving special attention to in an effort to save them will be saved. That’s the message.

 

[Clare73]

There is no free will in a world that is already predestined.
(As vindicated by countless fulfillments and prophecies)
Even some Physicists agree in the Universe of Destiny
As we cannot live in both Universes (Free will & Destiny) at once.

Contraire. . .when you understand the meaning of free will: the power to choose, without external force or constrains, what one prefers.

God determines my destiny and then gives me to prefer the choices leading to it, which choices I freely make--and that's free will!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
What makes you choose it is the strongest and most prevalent influences, affecting your mental and physical desires. I don't see how you can think that any choice is made out of a void. There are always causes. Even God chose out of his desire (if "desire" is a worthy descriptor).

Yes, but God didn't have his desired choice predermined, neither do I believe we do. I know I have said it a few times already, but my strongest argument against our choices being predetermined by God is the issue of responsibility.

For God to have his choices predetermined would imply a lot of false things —most notably, that God answers to a power higher than himself. I think you and I both agree that is not the case. He simply IS, and we do not simply exist, but had a beginning; we are creatures. We are not on any scale of responsibility compared to him.

Mark Quayle said:
Of course it cannot. Particularly libertarian freewill in the creature! At best that is a metaphysical proposal. And more to the point, it is a false construction, self-defeating. It invokes either secondary first causes, or the force of mere chance, both of which are self-contradictory.

Science can not know what free will is, there can be theories, but science does not know.

No, of course, science doesn't even know what consciousness is.

Mark Quayle said:
I think that you would agree that compared to God, our consciousness and sentience and self-awareness hardly figures on any scale.

True, but you want to calculate how God makes all His intentions come to pass, where I'm happy to say I don't know how God does it. I just know He can do it (in spite of our free libertarian will) because He is sovereign, but then I don't mean sovereign in the Calvinistic sense, rather just all powerful, who can do whatever He pleases.

No, I have no way to calculate such a thing as how God makes all his intentions come to pass, nor do I care to attempt it. I only hold to that belief because of the logical chains of causation —well, that, and the fact that God says much to that same effect.

Mark Quayle said:
Then, as I said, you invoke secondary first causes, which is logically self-contradictory.

I don't know exactly what you mean. Maybe you can explain what you mean and how that is self-contradictory?

There can be only one first cause. Agreed? That would be God, the only "uncaused causer", maker and ruler of all that is not him. Yet libertarian freewill proposes uncaused causing by those who choose, because (according to the libertarian) they are not caused to make any particular choice. So these choosers —supposedly uncaused causers— who were at least caused to exist, and whose existence is maintained at every moment by their Creator, somehow out of nothingness make choices, beginning their own chains of cause and effect with no preceding causes.

Mark Quayle said:
Do me a favor and watch the first half, if not the whole thing, of this video. In it, you will hear described in extremely condensed manner, enough of the story of our redemption, beginning with the account of Joseph's coat of many colors, a whole series of seemingly 'improbable' events, where I have to imagine, from your POV, that you would see many many multiple interventions by God to keep history steered toward the cross, (which I think you will agree that the cross, at least, was predetermined by God) —enough of the story, I say, that it seems to me impossible to not see God's providence and causation throughout. And in the whole story, are human creatures making choices, that inexorably result in the Cross.

I saw the video. I like that Sproul has a sense of humor, kind of fun to listen to him, you never know what he will say. Much of what he says I agree with. Of course when he says sovereign he means God is micromanaging cosmos, where I don't see where the Bible says that or even why it would be a necessary thing for God to do to have His will come to pass. I do think Sproul did a good job showing God gets His will done, more than showing how free libertarian will would go against that. He seems to rely on mystery when it comes to how God's decree and our responsibilty can coexist. I don't think these matters are even meant to be fully explained, so turning to mystery is not a bad thing.

I wish I knew how to put this, that comes instinctively to me. And I can't remember the term I heard from a scientific source that made a study on causation, that, though I don't think it conclusively proved the point, demonstrated the intricate interrelationship of what may otherwise seem to be unrelated events impacting all other identifiable "events" or facts. Instinctively, I know that all things are interrelated, (though I'm not so clear that the butterfly's wingbeat in China is part of the Hurricane simultaneously occurring on the other side of the globe. That is, instinctively, I think the wingbeat must precede the hurricane by some given period of time). But, the point is, all fact (but the One) must descend causally from the One Fact, who is "Cause Itself". Even the principle of causation is of HIS derivation, and is not itself raw fact.

So while it may not be logically necessary —to our minds, at least— to see that "micromanaging cosmos....is necessary....for God to do to have His will come to pass", it does logically follow, and is according to accepted principles, unlike the notion of absolutely self-derived individual potential of God's creatures. Sure, God could go around "flying by the seat of his pants", so to speak, to correct things gone awry, and working all self-generated fact out for his ends, but that denies an awful lot of the logically necessary attributes of God, to include Omnipotence, Simplicity and Immanence.

To add to this, and like it, IF it is universal fact that God "micromanages cosmos", then things are entirely logical as I have described, and not as libertarian freewill does. But IF it is not universal fact that God "micromanages cosmos", then all sorts of chaotic and self-contradictory notions ensue, that imply both 'chance' and 'secondary first causes'.

As for personal responsibility, consider this, if you need to, as cold hard fact, created fact and not simply philosophical considerations, that God is altogether pure, whose burning purity will not endure rebellion against himself, but must destroy it. (And, any departure from "cold hard fact" is not found in God's creation, but in God himself, and his purposes.) Then, in this kind of consideration, we are not malleable creation, but only the vessels made for his purposes, described in Romans 9. But some of these vessels, he created for the purpose of demonstrating his mercy and his glory, quite apart from anything they did or deserved. (While that picture is not the whole story, it does demonstrate the force of causation as generated by God alone, and demonstrates the creature as being only another "cog in the machine-works", incapable of libertarian ability to cause). Thus, morality is simple "did this and compensation for lack of purity resulted"— we have "fallen short" of the glory of God, and God will destroy us, but for his mercy and his purposes.

I'm not presenting the above paragraph as fact, but as simply a way to look at things, that does demonstrate the huge difference between where we figure on the scale of personal responsibility, and where God is. That we "should have done" and did not, can fall within the huge range of causation, without contradicting personal responsibility. God's creating necessarily implies that absolutely all fact, specifically in this context, absolutely all ability and choice by the creature, is established by God, and impossible without him having established it. God's creating also necessarily implies that our level of morality is nowhere near his. This is not about our ability to 'be good', but about our need for the power of his purity —our distance from him, vs being 'in him'.

I see once again I have rambled on. I hope something here is useful to you. Thanks for the fun.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
What makes you choose it is the strongest and most prevalent influences, affecting your mental and physical desires. I don't see how you can think that any choice is made out of a void. There are always causes. Even God chose out of his desire (if "desire" is a worthy descriptor).

For God to have his choices predetermined would imply a lot of false things —most notably, that God answers to a power higher than himself. I think you and I both agree that is not the case. He simply IS, and we do not simply exist, but had a beginning; we are creatures. We are not on any scale of responsibility compared to him.

Mark Quayle said:
Of course it cannot. Particularly libertarian freewill in the creature! At best that is a metaphysical proposal. And more to the point, it is a false construction, self-defeating. It invokes either secondary first causes, or the force of mere chance, both of which are self-contradictory.

No, of course, science doesn't even know what consciousness is.

Mark Quayle said:
I think that you would agree that compared to God, our consciousness and sentience and self-awareness hardly figures on any scale.

No, I have no way to calculate such a thing as how God makes all his intentions come to pass, nor do I care to attempt it. I only hold to that belief because of the logical chains of causation —well, that, and the fact that God says much to that same effect.

Mark Quayle said:
Then, as I said, you invoke secondary first causes, which is logically self-contradictory.

There can be only one first cause. Agreed? That would be God, the only "uncaused causer", maker and ruler of all that is not him. Yet libertarian freewill proposes uncaused causing by those who choose, because (according to the libertarian) they are not caused to make any particular choice. So these choosers —supposedly uncaused causers— who were at least caused to exist, and whose existence is maintained at every moment by their Creator, somehow out of nothingness make choices, beginning their own chains of cause and effect with no preceding causes.

Mark Quayle said:
Do me a favor and watch the first half, if not the whole thing, of this video. In it, you will hear described in extremely condensed manner, enough of the story of our redemption, beginning with the account of Joseph's coat of many colors, a whole series of seemingly 'improbable' events, where I have to imagine, from your POV, that you would see many many multiple interventions by God to keep history steered toward the cross, (which I think you will agree that the cross, at least, was predetermined by God) —enough of the story, I say, that it seems to me impossible to not see God's providence and causation throughout. And in the whole story, are human creatures making choices, that inexorably result in the Cross.

I wish I knew how to put this, that comes instinctively to me. And I can't remember the term I heard from a scientific source that made a study on causation, that, though I don't think it conclusively proved the point, demonstrated the intricate interrelationship of what may otherwise seem to be unrelated events impacting all other identifiable "events" or facts. Instinctively, I know that all things are interrelated, (though I'm not so clear that the butterfly's wingbeat in China is part of the Hurricane simultaneously occurring on the other side of the globe. That is, instinctively, I think the wingbeat must precede the hurricane by some given period of time). But, the point is, all fact (but the One) must descend causally from the One Fact, who is "Cause Itself". Even the principle of causation is of HIS derivation, and is not itself raw fact.

So while it may not be logically necessary —to our minds, at least— to see that "micromanaging cosmos....is necessary....for God to do to have His will come to pass", it does logically follow, and is according to accepted principles, unlike the notion of absolutely self-derived individual potential of God's creatures. Sure, God could go around "flying by the seat of his pants", so to speak, to correct things gone awry, and working all self-generated fact out for his ends, but that denies an awful lot of the logically necessary attributes of God, to include Omnipotence, Simplicity and Immanence.

To add to this, and like it, IF it is universal fact that God "micromanages cosmos", then things are entirely logical as I have described, and not as libertarian freewill does. But IF it is not universal fact that God "micromanages cosmos", then all sorts of chaotic and self-contradictory notions ensue, that imply both 'chance' and 'secondary first causes'.

As for personal responsibility, consider this, if you need to, as cold hard fact, created fact and not simply philosophical considerations, that God is altogether pure, whose burning purity will not endure rebellion against himself, but must destroy it. (And, any departure from "cold hard fact" is not found in God's creation, but in God himself, and his purposes.) Then, in this kind of consideration, we are not malleable creation, but only the vessels made for his purposes, described in Romans 9. But some of these vessels, he created for the purpose of demonstrating his mercy and his glory, quite apart from anything they did or deserved. (While that picture is not the whole story, it does demonstrate the force of causation as generated by God alone, and demonstrates the creature as being only another "cog in the machine-works", incapable of libertarian ability to cause). Thus, morality is simple "did this and compensation for lack of purity resulted"— we have "fallen short" of the glory of God, and God will destroy us, but for his mercy and his purposes.

I'm not presenting the above paragraph as fact, but as simply a way to look at things, that does demonstrate the huge difference between where we figure on the scale of personal responsibility, and where God is. That we "should have done" and did not, can fall within the huge range of causation, without contradicting personal responsibility. God's creating necessarily implies that absolutely all fact, specifically in this context, absolutely all ability and choice by the creature, is established by God, and impossible without him having established it. God's creating also necessarily implies that our level of morality is nowhere near his. This is not about our ability to 'be good', but about our need for the power of his purity —our distance from him, vs being 'in him'.

I see once again I have rambled on. I hope something here is useful to you. Thanks for the fun.

@zoidar , if you are at all interested in the study of God's Immanence, consider this interesting question: Morphic Resonance

morphic resonance theory - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[Clare73]

Yes, but God didn't have his desired choice predermined, neither do I believe we do. I know I have said it a few times already, but my strongest argument against our choices being predetermined by God is the issue of responsibility.
Science can not know what free will is, there can be theories, but science does not know.
True, but you want to calculate how God makes all His intentions come to pass, where I'm happy to say I don't know how God does it. I just know He can do it (in spite of our free libertarian will) because He is sovereign, but then I don't mean sovereign in the Calvinistic sense, rather just all powerful, who can do whatever He pleases.
I don't know exactly what you mean. Maybe you can explain what you mean and how that is self-contradictory?

I saw the video. I like that Sproul has a sense of humor, kind of fun to listen to him, you never know what he will say. Much of what he says I agree with. Of course when he says sovereign he means God is micromanaging cosmos, where I don't see where the Bible says that

Da 4:35?

or even why it would be a necessary thing for God to do to have His will come to pass. I do think Sproul did a good job showing God gets His will done, more than showing how free libertarian will would go against that. He seems to rely on mystery when it comes to how God's decree and our responsibilty can coexist. I don't think these matters are even meant to be fully explained, so turning to mystery is not a bad thing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where do you get the idea that “nothing can happen apart from His causation”?

Where do you get the idea that anything can happen apart from His causation? Fact is ESTABLISHED by God. There can be no fact, other than the fact of God himself, that did not come to be, by the Uncaused Causer.

It is logically self-contradictory to say that God created other uncaused causers. Therefore, nothing can happen apart from his causation.