*ahem* The hard determinist, thinking for theirself? Oh yes I absolutely agree with the point made, however there is a common shared level of agreement among those mentioned.
There is no need to be surprised that the proponent of hard determinism considers his thoughts his own, our sense of autonomy is overwhelming.
The verbal inspiration of scripture is a good illustration. Consider the authors of the epistles for example; the letters are just that, letters. We receive them ourselves, as we read, as if they arrived in the post [so to speak] they are written to us personally as a private correspondence from an individual who never mentions that his thoughts, which precede and produce the writing of his words, are not his own...but actually the thoughts of another [the Holy Spirit]
But of course they are his own...for he thought them...and therefore he acted upon [and wrote]...those things of which he thought.
Which, as an aside, is all that is required as the grounds for our responsibility and accountability before God.
Can the compatibilist not agree with the above? Talking about subjective experiences is really not saying much, especially when they may or may not actually be true. One may have a sense of autonomy, but that does not make it so.
If the compatibilist can accept exhaustive determinism with the exercise of free will a component contingent on that which is determined...than yes they will be able to agree.
We have self awareness from which we derive our identity so our sense of autonomy is innate...so we cant help assuming we have it...autonomy that is.
The biblical evidence though presents the case that the wills of Gods rational creatures are necessarily subsumed within the will of God, and being subsumed, necessarily subordinate to His will.
And being subordinate...than subordinated.
Yet our innate sense of autonomy, our self awareness, can not perceive the periphery.
For in Him we live and move and have our being...[Acts 17:28]
Initially, all secondary causes have their origin from the FIRST cause, and as such not independent in one sense, but can have limited independence in other senses.
By limited independence...you mean limited to that determined?
You can write ten volumes of sophisticated and convoluted arguments in regards the distinction between first and secondary causes; then on the last page have this postscript
PS - The first cause...is the only cause...in the end.
The answer is complicated, because Satan is both independent and dependent, just as any created being created with a will and ability to obey or disobey. The easiest way for me to explain would be earthly parenthood. Infants and children are both dependent and independent of their parents, in different senses.
The Creator/creature distinction doesnt transpose into the parent/child dynamic in regards this issue for ontological reasons.
I asked these questions earlier in this thread but there was no reply... How would you respond?
Question - God is responsible for the decree that Adam should sin?
Question - God is responsible for the decreed methodology employed ensuring Adam would sin?
Therefore - God is responsible for the decree that Satan should sin.
Therefore - God is responsible for the decreed methodology employed ensuring Satan would sin.
.
