Free Will

[Benefactor]

Predestined for Free Will
© 2004 by David Bennett
updated 3 July 2009

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. James 4:8

• Download a PDF copy of this paper
  

Justin Martyr- c. 100/114AD – c. 162/168 AD. He was another early Christian apologist (defender) of the faith and was martyred by
beheading. His works represent the earliest surviving Christian apologies of notable size:

• • Man acts by his own free will and not by fate. (20)
  
  • We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered
  according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be
  predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless
  humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever
  they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely
  created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable
  to do anything else than what he was made for. (21)
  
  • But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have
  been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men
  and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom
  they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if
  they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless
  we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it
  foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. (22)
  

Clement of Alexandria (190 AD)

• • A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from sinful desires achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself to be very
  eager and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. God works together with willing souls. But if the
  person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but
  to save the willing, that of one showing grace. (23)
  
  • Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and
  avoidance, if evil is involuntary. (24)

• David Bennett; Free Will VS Predestination; 7/23/09

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=74951ebdba0b48b87949

 

[moonbeam]

Determinism and Responsibility
​

Gordon Clark

​

Unless one has been recently disgusted by a surfeit of discussion on this sometimes barren topic, a religious thinker will almost invariably be carried away into a heated argument. This is better than to denominate the question barren, for such an attitude is agnostic, and to be disgusted is merely to be exhausted. Every Christian must face this problem squarely, and especially must the Calvinist so do, since he believes that much of the learned disrespect of Christianity is owing to the loose thinking of Catholics and Arminians.
​

Yet for fear someone may expect too much from a paper with such a comprehensive title, it is necessary strictly to state the scope of this article. First of all it is not a discussion of the freedom of the will such as is found in Jonathan Edwards’ well-known work. The arguments of that great man concern many details which, how ever important and interesting, may be omitted from the present subject. Naturally there is some overlapping but the direction of search is different. The investigation of innumerable intricacies runs the risk of losing all sense of proportion, of becoming entangled in a puzzling maze and so requires an exceptionally great mind such as Edwards’ was. The direction of search here, on the contrary, will be away from intricacies toward very general outlines and thus must run the risk of being superficial. Nevertheless it has seemed worth the risk. Now to state exactly the scope of the matter. Recently in books and magazines of varying intellectual value there have appeared, in defence of Historic Christianity as opposed to modern wanderings, attacks on "mechanistic psychology," "determinism in all its forms," and other phrases of similar import. This writer fears that however much one may hold to the cardinal points of orthodoxy, it is not always dear which philosophic theories are or are not consistent with such orthodoxy. One would think that only a shallow magazine would indiscriminately condemn all forms of determinism; there might be more excuse for an attack on mechanistic psychology. The aim of this article is, then, to show that determinism is consistent with responsibility, indeed responsibility requires determinism.
​

The arguments on both sides are fairly well known. They so lack originality as to discourage new attempts, including this one. The determinist position is stated as well as anywhere in the article by George Stuart Fullerton, entitled "Freedom and Free Will." His aim was to show that on the basis of indeterminism moral conduct in general, in so far as free or indeterminate, would lose all ethical value. The indeterminist holds that certain actions are not adequately explained, i.e., determined by preceding causes. Then, if benevolence for example is a free action, it is not determined by a benevolent personality but happens ceaselessly. If the will were free absolutely, then a knowledge of one’s own respectable character in the past brings neither hope nor consolation. Ordinarily we consider a determining factor, and a moral man does not be immoral except for some other determining factor.
​

But free will allows a man to become a criminal for no reason at all. Fullerton’s illustration was little Tommy who stole his mother’s jam. Punishment will not prevent a recurrence of the invasion of the pantry, neither will persuasion of a gentler sort. These can have no determining power on free actions. But on a deterministic theory, punishment, persuasion and praise are all justified. "It seems, then that Tommy’s mother, and his aunts and all his spiritual pastors and masters have for years approached Tommy upon a strictly deterministic basis. They have thought it worth while to talk, and to talk a great deal. They have done what all pedagogues do – they have adjusted means to ends and have looked for results, taking no account of freedom at all."
​

the full article can be read at: Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.​

 

[AMR]

A morally free agent is an agent that can make decisions, choosing according to their greatest desires at the moment they so choose, without any awareness that these decisions are being restrained by outside forces.

AMR

 

[Epiphoskei]

• Man acts by his own free will and not by fate. (20)

"Fate," in all the ECF's, refers to the Greco-Roman understanding of fatalism, especially astrological fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that ends will be accomplished apart from the operation of the will. This is not nor has it ever been a Reformed understanding of the will.

 

[Benefactor]

"Fate," in all the ECF's, refers to the Greco-Roman understanding of fatalism, especially astrological fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that ends will be accomplished apart from the operation of the will. This is not nor has it ever been a Reformed understanding of the will.

I would agree that the secular definition of fate is different form that of the Christian world, specifically speaking here of the ACRT thinking. Now you understand that those of us who are not of the manner of thinking of those in the ACRT mindset see things from what I call a “normal mind set” or the grid is conditioned with normal practical Biblical truth.

Having said that, I understand that ACRT thinking sees things as their normal from their grid and this is not going to change, while I and others see the ACRT grid as extremely flawed thus the belief that God intentionally and purposely damns people to hell for an eternal life of suffering simply on the basis of a decree of God for His pleasure. A rather ominous way of believing which parallels the non God believer only to have God as its source verses evaluation or randomness.

So, while you do not believe your doctrine is a doctrine of fate your doctrine is viewed from a normal view as one of fate, fatalism, with an object to blame it on, God. That is the only difference, with one modification, that being those who espouse this “fatalistic” view elect themselves as exempt from it by creating a safe haven for those who declare they are the ones in this model.

I have maintained and do so to this moment that if ACRT believers would actually preach openly from their pulpits the things that are recorded and are believe by ACRT on this forum and others the churches they attend would eventually die a slow death unless each family had multiple children to populate the ranks. The “Primitive Baptist”, which are particular or ACRT in thinking are such a group that has proven this many times over.

A dear friend of mine, for a number of years, is of this model of theology. One of our dear and late governors, a co-pastor with my dear friend, has so enlightened me over the years of their particular belief. He is a godly man but we do disagree in these matters, yet I must say his attitude is not that of so many I have witness over the years having the “hate attack dog mentality”, which I firmly see John Calvin as demonstrating in his life.

I do not judge his soul or yours or any professing believer for that is completely God’s realm and I would be foolish to enter into such a presumption of thinking to try and dethrone him as Satan did.

If a person tells me they have trusted in Christ they are my sister and brother in the Lord if they are in fact saved and that is between them and my Lord Jesus Christ my God and Savior.

 

[Benefactor]

Predestined for Free Will
© 2004 by David Bennett
updated 3 July 2009

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. James 4:8
Download a PDF copy of this paper



• R.C. Sproul, Jr.: “…God desired for man to fall into sin…God created sin.” (10)

WHAT IS FREE WILL?
Free will teaches that when presented with the facts of God’s plan for salvation that every individual person has a choice to make, to either accept
or reject God’s gift of salvation. God desires that every person accept His gift. What was predestined was God’s plan for salvation through Jesus
for those who accept it. Therefore if you accept that Jesus died for your sins and you have made Him Lord of your life then you are a part of the
predetermined plan.

• • Jesus Christ: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but
  have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. (11)
  
  • Apostle Peter: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting
  anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (12)
  
  • Apostle Paul: For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. (13)
  
  • Apostle Paul: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved. (14)
  

Calvinists claim that their position is proven by early church leaders and then quote Augustine who lived from 354 to 430 AD. What do even
earlier church leaders say about free will? Let’s look at a few. Some of these men were discipled directly by one or two of the original twelve
apostles or by men the original disciples taught and mentored.

Ignatius of Antioch- Died between 98 and 110 AD. Ignatius was likely a disciple of both Apostles Peter and John and was martyred (Ignatius was condemned to fight wild beasts in the Coliseum) in Rome. Seven of his letters have survived to this day; he is generally considered to be one of the Apostolic Fathers (the earliest authoritative group of the Church Fathers):

• • If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.(15)

Polycarp- c. 69 AD-c. 155 AD. Martyred by being burned at the stake in his 87th year. Polycarp had been a disciple of John (there is debate as whether this John was the son of Zebedee, or John the Presbyter (Lake 1912)).(16) I list Polycarp here not for any particular quote but because he was a teacher of Irenaeus, whom I do quote:

• But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom... (17)

Irenaeus- (ca. 130-202) - Irenaeus, who was also a martyr, was taught by Polycarp and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. About 180 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies Book IV, against ideas that would later become aspects of Calvinist and Reformed Theology in its denial of the free will as you can see in the following summaries:
• Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by

• 
  Nature Good, and Others Bad. (18)
  
  • Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own
  Will and Choice, to Perform God’s Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious. (19)
  

Justin Martyr- c. 100/114AD – c. 162/168 AD. He was another early Christian apologist (defender) of the faith and was martyred by beheading. His works represent the earliest surviving Christian apologies of notable size:

• • Man acts by his own free will and not by fate. (20)
  
  • We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever
  they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for. (21)
  
  • But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. (22)
  

Clement of Alexandria (190 AD)

• • A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from sinful desires achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself to be very eager and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. God works together with willing souls. But if the person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace. (23)
  • Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary. (24)
  

Archelaus (250-300 AD)

• All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment.... And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments. Whoever despises them and turns aside to what is contrary to them, shall yet without doubt have to face this law of judgment.... There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases. (25)

• Part One

David Bennett; Free Will VS Predestination ; July 25, 2009

 

[Benefactor]

Part 2

Methodius (260-315 AD)

• • Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate,
  are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils (26)
  

I could have quoted more early church leaders but the point is made. Lest you think I merely cherry picked favorable quotes to make my point
consider what Calvinist Loraine Boettner has to say about the early church leaders. Boettner, author of The Reformed Doctrine of
Predestination acknowledges that the early church fathers did not ascribe to the doctrine of predestination:

• “It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near
  the end of the fourth century....They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power
  to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side
  of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have
  denied the doctrine of Predestination... They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free
  will...” (27)
  
  

Regarding what we now call the doctrine of predestination Boettner went on to say, “This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen
by Augustine...” Augustine lived from 354 – 430 A.D., well after the church fathers quoted above.

Boettner wasn’t alone in his conclusion that prior to Augustine there really weren’t any who espoused a doctrine of predestination of a certain elect
few. In 1882 James Morrison wrote in The Extent of Atonement about an English Bishop, John Davenant (1572-1641), who was present at the
Synod of Dort in 1618. Bishop Davenant wrote:

• It may be truly said before Augustine and Pelagius, there was no question concerning the death of Christ, whether it was to be
  extended to all mankind, or to be confined only to the elect. For the Fathers…not a word (that I know of) occurs among them of
  the exclusion of any persons by the decree of God. They agree that it is actually beneficial to those only who believe, yet
  everywhere confess that Christ died in behalf of all mankind…
  
  Augustine died in AD 429, and up to his time, at least, there is not the slightest evidence that any Christian ever dreamed of a
  propitiation for the elect alone. Even after him, the doctrine of limited propitiation was but slowly propagated, and for long but
  partially received.
  

In other words, according to Reformed Theology, the early church fathers, men who studied under the original Apostles and Disciples or their
students, did not understand basic Christian doctrine. Apparently the world would have to wait nearly 400 years for this revelation! They are in
effect saying that Christ’s work and the Scriptures were not understood by the early Christians. It required some special revelation of hidden truth
to special people centuries later. Isn’t that Gnosticism?

What we see is that Calvinists would rather put their trust in doctrine developed centuries after Jesus, the Apostles and the early church fathers, by
a man who did not study with those closest to the source. Biblical historians and scholars will tell you the closer one gets to the original source, the
more likely one is to get accurate doctrine from those who were there. The reverse is true, the farther away you get from those who were there, the
more likely that errors are to develop in doctrine.

There is about a 400 year jump between the original Apostles and their students until Augustine revealed “the truth,” then you had another 1,100
years until men like John Calvin came along to develop and enforce this doctrine.

Dave Hunt sums it up nicely:

• "The huge difference between the biblical God and the Calvinist God is clear. The biblical God punishes men for rejecting the salvation He
  provided for everyone, which all could have accepted by their free will-and punishes them for their sins, which are contrary to His will, none
  of which they had to commit but chose to do so.
  
  But the Calvinist God condemns to hell those whom He could save if He so desired but for whom He sovereignly chose not even to have
  Christ die and from whom He deliberately withholds the salvation He pretends to offer them—and punishes them for not accepting. Yes,
  that's a huge difference."
  

The Berean Call, July 2007 Q & A


Bennett;http://www.freewill-predestination.com/freewill.html; July 25, 2009

 

[Epiphoskei]

I would agree that the secular definition of fate is different form that of the Christian world, specifically speaking here of the ACRT thinking. Now you understand that those of us who are not of the manner of thinking of those in the ACRT mindset see things from what I call a “normal mind set” or the grid is conditioned with normal practical Biblical truth.

Having said that, I understand that ACRT thinking sees things as their normal from their grid and this is not going to change, while I and others see the ACRT grid as extremely flawed thus the belief that God intentionally and purposely damns people to hell for an eternal life of suffering simply on the basis of a decree of God for His pleasure. A rather ominous way of believing which parallels the non God believer only to have God as its source verses evaluation or randomness.

So, while you do not believe your doctrine is a doctrine of fate your doctrine is viewed from a normal view as one of fate, fatalism, with an object to blame it on, God. That is the only difference, with one modification, that being those who espouse this “fatalistic” view elect themselves as exempt from it by creating a safe haven for those who declare they are the ones in this model.

In a fatalistic system, external decrees make things happen apart from the actions of the people who are fated. In all the greek tragedies about fate, the ill-fated human does everything he can to avoid his fate, but no matter what he does, the fate happens anyway. There is a world of difference between this and the view that the future is determined by the wills of people who make it. Even the adherent of libertarian free will would have to agree that the future is determined by our wills.

Now a system wherein the will is governed by our natures, as opposed to being free from our natures, is not going to simply jump catagories from the latter into the former, such that the will doesn't matter at all. That simply doesn't follow.

And when you treat it as if it did, you start making odd statements about how determinism works. The reprobate, for instance, are condemned because their natures direct their wills to reject the Gospel message, not because God just damns them regardless of what they do. If Calvinism espouses fate, the reprobate would be able to, with libertarian freedom, pursue God and believe in the Gospel, but end up wretched men anyway, and be condemned, despite their faith. Which obviously it doesn't teach.

 

[Benefactor]

removed

 

[Epiphoskei]

You're reading a presupposition of incompatibalism into the argument. If you want to have a discussion of compatibalism or incompatibalism, then argue that instead. But the statement that any form of determinism is fatalism can only be true if the free operation of the will is incompatible with the future's being determined.

Same goes for your claim that I can't involve man in his salvation without denying my system. I simply cannot involve man in his salvation and keep my system without denying your system, that election eradicates free will. Men's wills determine the future, but men's wills are also determined by their natures, which are in turn determined by their creator. If I hold to that position, I can indeed easily hold both free will and determinism. If you want to disagree with me, you're going to have to start with arguing for incompatibalistic libertarian free will, you cannot simply presume it.

The argument that is older than dirt has been shown to be over something quite entierly different than determinism. But if you want to portray the two positions of the classical dispute as the only two options, and characterize my position as being historical Greco-Roman fate, you have to live with the consequences that yours would be classical Greco-Roman free will, a system wherein the future doesn't exist, and divinities cannot know the future. "Free will" to the Pagan meant that the future does not exist of necessity, i.e., Open Theism.

 

[Benefactor]

You're reading a presupposition of incompatibalism into the argument. If you want to have a discussion of compatibalism or incompatibalism, then argue that instead. But the statement that any form of determinism is fatalism can only be true if the free operation of the will is incompatible with the future's being determined.

Same goes for your claim that I can't involve man in his salvation without denying my system. I simply cannot involve man in his salvation and keep my system without denying your system, that election eradicates free will. Men's wills determine the future, but men's wills are also determined by their natures, which are in turn determined by their creator. If I hold to that position, I can indeed easily hold both free will and determinism. If you want to disagree with me, you're going to have to start with arguing for incompatibalistic libertarian free will, you cannot simply presume it.

The argument that is older than dirt has been shown to be over something quite entierly different than determinism. But if you want to portray the two positions of the classical dispute as the only two options, and characterize my position as being historical Greco-Roman fate, you have to live with the consequences that yours would be classical Greco-Roman free will, a system wherein the future doesn't exist, and divinities cannot know the future. "Free will" to the Pagan meant that the future does not exist of necessity, i.e., Open Theism.

Why Christians Should not be Compatibilists: A Response to Baker​

John M. DePoe

III. Inherent Difficulties with Compatibilism
The problem of representation, if successful, is strong enough on its own to undercut the applicability of Baker’s argument to all Christians. Another line of argument, however, can be taken against Baker’s case as well, namely, to reject compatibilism for its inherent difficulties. A number of important critiques have been raised against compatibilism, which cannot be recounted in full here.14 Instead, I will attempt to give a quick exposition of two of its chief difficulties. The first difficulty in accepting compatibilism concerns the coherence of the compatibilist’s definition of free will. According to compatibilism, a person’s free choice is determined by “effective desires” which in turn are caused by God. This move strikes many libertarians as suspicious. The claim “God causes a person to perform a free act” smacks of a semantic sleight of hand. As Alvin Plantinga has noted, this is like claiming “being in jail doesn’t really limit one’s freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he would be free to come and go as he pleased.” 15 For similar reasons, William James calls compatibilism “a quagmire of evasion.” 16 The very definition of compatibilistic free will seems to conclude in questionable, if not altogether nonsensical, grounds. Secondly, compatibilism undercuts the grounds for agents to possess rationality.17 For if sufficient conditions outside of one’s will determine one’s beliefs, then one’s ability to assess and choose arguments based on their cogency ceases to exist. Every
person’s knowledge has already been sufficiently determined by factors beyond that 9 person’s will. Hence, if compatibilism is true, it would be a mere accident if anyone actually chose to accept any true beliefs (including the belief that compatibilism is true). If compatibilism were not plagued with forbidding difficulties like the two surveyed above, then surely more Christian philosophers would be willing to consider
compatibilism. But given these inherent problems, many will find compatibilism simply is not a live option from the outset.​

John M. DePoe;
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=52469566
July 25, 2009​

 

[nobdysfool]

Why don't you answer, yourself? I'm not nearly as impressed or convinced by someone else's words who isn't a participant here. Not that I'm all that convinced by your words, but at least it's you who is participating here, John DePoe isn't. Expecting us to answer to and defend against the words of someone who isn't even here or a part of this discussion is a cop-out.

 

[DeaconDean]

I would ask only one point, instead of quoting what the ECF's said, which is highly wrong for a Baptist, why not use scripture to support your assumptions?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[moonbeam]

Having said that, I understand that ACRT thinking sees things as their normal from their grid and this is not going to change, while I and others see the ACRT grid as extremely flawed thus the belief that God intentionally and purposely damns people to hell for an eternal life of suffering simply on the basis of a decree of God for His pleasure. A rather ominous way of believing which parallels the non God believer only to have God as its source verses evaluation or randomness.

It seems to me that you are espousing a libertarian form of free will in regards man’s ability to make contrary choices between options A or B..…the choice of either A or B resulting from internal reasoning within the private domain of that individual…..that reasoning being validated also within the private domain of that individual.

Surely you would agree with me (if we pursue this line of thought) that man can not be in possession of such an attribute apart from it being a reflection of an attribute possessed by his Creator.

That being the case then….we can assume that God had a choice wether or not to create this cosmos we are experiencing presently….he could have chosen otherwise and not created it at all….his reasons in either case being determined and validated within the confines of his private domain.

It appears that (of the contrary choices) he choose to create this cosmos….as I find myself responding to your post.

Now…in regards as to wether God would create man with libertarian free will (such as God himself possesses)….or not….would be one of the contrary choices God would have to consider.

He must have a choice….or he has no choice either….in which case we would have no choice either….which would be deterministic for God as well as man. (I’m not sure you would want to go there)

So the choice God has is to determine (choose) from a number of options ….we will keep it simple.

Option A - create man with libertarian free will.

Option B – create man without libertarian free will.


Does God have the sovereign right to choose either ?

On what basis does God have the sovereign right ?


To broaden the discussion even further….lets consider the questions I have asked from the perspective of two other options.

Option Arminian – create man without determining any individual's final outcome.

Option Calvinist – create man determining every individual's final outcome.


Does God have the sovereign right to choose either ?

On what basis does God have the sovereign right ?

 

[AMR]

Surely you would agree with me (if we pursue this line of thought) that man can not be in possession of such an attribute apart from it being a reflection of an attribute possessed by his Creator.

I would disagree and especially since you are trying to erect an argument on this assumption alone.

The essential attributes of the personality of God are exercised on a much higher level than as man does. Man reflects God, not the other way around. Man needs memory because man forgets—God does not. Man does not know the future so anticipation is needed—God know the future and needs not anticipate it as man does. Unlike the man who must deliberate because he does not know the correct or best course of action, God does know the correct and best course of action without deliberation. It is clear from Scripture that God interacts with man, but in a mode that is different than the way men interact with one another.

To argue that God is somehow deliberating with Himself fails to understand the nature of God's knowledge.

AMR

 

[moonbeam]

I would disagree and especially since you are trying to erect an argument on this assumption alone.

The essential attributes of the personality of God are exercised on a much higher level than as man does. Man reflects God, not the other way around. Man needs memory because man forgets—God does not. Man does not know the future so anticipation is needed—God know the future and needs not anticipate it as man does. Unlike the man who must deliberate because he does not know the correct or best course of action, God does know the correct and best course of action without deliberation. It is clear from Scripture that God interacts with man, but in a mode that is different than the way men interact with one another.

To argue that God is somehow deliberating with Himself fails to understand the nature of God's knowledge.

AMR

I agree completely.

Where I have inserted the brackets "(if we pursue this line of thought)" I was making acknowledgement that I was following what might be described as a more rudimentary line of reasoning...one that might be more in common with the "common man" as Benefactor would have it.

That there is much more depth to the subject of God's attributes requiring more finesse and clarity in the articulation thereof...is not denied...but acknowledged.

Perhaps I should have done things differently...I could have...however...I have written what I have written.

Seeing as we hold to the truth...that being that God is soveriegn over all the events that occur in the temporal realm (including the thoughts and intentions that motivated them)...I can conclude that your objections to what I have written have also been decreed of God.

Food for thought.

 

[moonbeam]

Benefactor

I recall a thread you started where I was willing to answer your questions without reservation...and for which you commended me...seeing as none of my Calvinist brothers in Christ were willing to do so.

I would appreciate it if you would respond in kind.

Does God have the sovereign right to choose either ?

On what basis does God have the sovereign right ?

 

[AMR]

Seeing as we hold to the truth...that being that God is soveriegn over all the events that occur in the temporal realm (including the thoughts and intentions that motivated them)...I can conclude that your objections to what I have written have also been decreed of God.

Then, my brother, the error is wholly my own, for I have obviously misunderstood the direction you were headed in the post which I responded. Would that I was better able to discern your intent! Perhaps it was ordained that the exchange between us was required in order to make things more perspicuous to others, no?

AMR

 

[Benefactor]

A morally free agent is an agent that can make decisions, choosing according to their greatest desires at the moment they so choose, without any awareness that these decisions are being restrained by outside forces.

AMR

I would call it Absolute knowledge and for us described as "foreknowledge". It is a humbling thing to consider that here we are regardless of our differences and God absolutely knows it all. The implications of that thought concerning holiness are beyond comprehension. Anyway I know that I am not a compatibilits, I see in God's plan freedom to choose which is compatible with His sovereignty but not in the same sense as the ACRT theological capitalist do.


Correct me if I am wrong; do not all followers of Augustine, Calvin, and Reform Theology (ACRT) according to your understanding claim to be theological compatablist?

 

[Benefactor]

I agree completely.

Where I have inserted the brackets "(if we pursue this line of thought)" I was making acknowledgement that I was following what might be described as a more rudimentary line of reasoning...one that might be more in common with the "common man" as Benefactor would have it.

That there is much more depth to the subject of God's attributes requiring more finesse and clarity in the articulation thereof...is not denied...but acknowledged.

Perhaps I should have done things differently...I could have...however...I have written what I have written.

Seeing as we hold to the truth...that being that God is soveriegn over all the events that occur in the temporal realm (including the thoughts and intentions that motivated them)...I can conclude that your objections to what I have written have also been decreed of God.

Food for thought.

Emphasis mine: Let me see, having a little fun here, "seeing as we hold to the truth" now if what I hold to is the truth and we hold different views then