Radagast is apparently adept at giving horribly inaccurate presentations of Catholic theology, and you will never see him cite a source or construct an actual argument.
People will make up their own minds on that, of course.
Upvote
0
Radagast is apparently adept at giving horribly inaccurate presentations of Catholic theology, and you will never see him cite a source or construct an actual argument.
Can't write. On a phone.Well, that shows a substantial lack of understanding of the issues.
Compatibilist free will says that you do the thing that you want to do. I'm having eggs for breakfast; that's what I want. To quote Thomas Hobbes, free will is finding "no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe."
Libertarian free will says that you could have done something else. I'm having eggs for breakfast, but I might have chosen oatmeal.
Libertarian free will is, of course, incompatible both with predestination and with the foreknowledge of God (because if God foresaw that I would have eggs, it would be impossible for me to have oatmeal).
I agree with @zippy2006
You mean something like this l?So do many atheist materialists. "Compatibilist free will" is just contemporary academic jargon for a disbelief in the colloquial understanding of free will. At the very best this argument is a deeply problematic equivocation between academic terms and colloquial terms.
(For those who do not know, compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with causal determinism. So your whole life can be 100% causally determined by antecedent events and you can still have "free will." Fun stuff. )
The way you explain this gives the impression you adhere to open theism.So do many atheist materialists. "Compatibilist free will" is just contemporary academic jargon for a disbelief in the colloquial understanding of free will. At the very best this argument is a deeply problematic equivocation between academic terms and colloquial terms.
(For those who do not know, compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with causal determinism. So your whole life can be 100% causally determined by antecedent events and you can still have "free will." Fun stuff. )
I’m still waiting for you to go beyond your assertions and form an argument. You have not cited one Calvinist source.This is false. ...Radagast is apparently adept at giving horribly inaccurate presentations of Catholic theology, and you will never see him cite a source or construct an actual argument. All you get from him are arguments from authority--his authority. I would advise finding a better source, perhaps someone who is actually Catholic.
Wow. Why didn’t you share the theological definition.We can just skirt around the sophistry and take an actual authoritative source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism....like I said, compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with determinism.
Don't feel so responsible!(Though you are of course encouraged to read the sources I gave rather than simply taking my word for it.)
Admittedly it is a difficult topic and the Calvinist's mistake is in some ways understandable. At the end of the day it is their understanding of God that is most deficient, for the Thomist's understanding of God is night-and-day different from the Calvinist's. As for myself, I've been around the merry-go-round with Calvinists one too many times to feel the need to descend into that rabbit hole again.
but not double predestination.
The way you explain this gives the impression you adhere to open theism.
I’m still waiting for you to go beyond your assertions and form an argument. You have not cited one Calvinist source.
There is no such thing as "double predestination."
Calvinists believe in predestination, that's all.
I hail from a Jesuit university. The Catholic preparatory before that loved old theology books. We studied many.lol, is that so? C.S. Lewis proposed a remedy for chronological myopia: reading old books. In your case I would recommend reading some theology that predates the 1980's.
Resting on old laurels will not do . If you make a sweeping comment you should cite the source and put a bit of intellectual freight behind it.I suppose if you don't consider the Foundation for Reformed Theology's Calvin Studies a Calvinist source I haven't, but given your comment about Open Theism it strikes me as more likely that you simply haven't looked.
I hail from a Jesuit university.
The reason I mentioned open theism is in your assertions (note not arguments) by denying the Sovereignty of God all you have left is a beggar God who waits for humans to choose Him. And a God which is waiting for wicked men to endorse His own purpose.
Compatibilism takes the Sovereignty of God in measure along with the choices people make based on the master of their lives. Aka the bondage of the will explained by the Apostle in Romans 6.
Can you quote Calvin on double predestination. He actually shared St Augustine's view that we are all condemned and God saves some.It's good we can agree on something.
There are Calvinists who believe in double predestination and those who don't. Calvin did. Luther flirted with it. Lutheranism dropped it at Concord. I already cited an example of a local Calvinist who rejects Calvin's doctrine of double predestination (see here).
Then address the Scriptures I posted from the Acts of the Apostles.It's worse than I thought.
You're laboring under the modern idea that predestination entails determinism and thus drawing the false conclusion that compatibilism is a characteristically Christian position. It's not. Here's an interesting excerpt from IEP that is helpfully succinct:
Medieval philosophers did not ask the question whether free will was compatible with causal determinism, not because they did not understand the ramifications of cause and effect or because they lacked a scientific notion of the world. They recognized the regularities of the world and understood the implications of a mechanistic world-view. They did not ask this question because they accepted the position that the freedom of human action is incompatible with causal determinism and because they believed that human beings in fact do act freely, at least on some occasions. Thus, in current terms, they were libertarians about human freedom.
Perhaps you missed the point. Maybe not.If you can't read posts how do you expect to read books? (Lk 16:10)
- Zippy: You're laboring under the idea that predestination entails determinism
- redleg: You're wrong, Peter believed in predestination!
- Zippy: