Yes, I can see that. That's the problem. Somehow, you seem to think that you are smarter than all the theologians and philosophers that have thought about this for the past 2000 years.
Do you remember what I said about how I believe the devil is using psycho semantics as a means of psychological manipulation, and how he is able to make something appear bad to someone when in reality it is good? Well this is a perfect example of what I was talking about.
Since I don't think I'm smarter than all these theologians and philosophers, I must surmise that you're probably thinking, that when I say "I'm stating what I see as self evident", that I mean that it's not self evident to anyone else because they're too stupid to see it. No, what I'm stating is I'm being honest to the best of my ability so as not to assert things that I cannot prove.
From post #157:
He tempts by appealing to one's vanity, critically comparing one person to another and either lifting up or putting down in the process. This creates desires that we would not have otherwise as we feel we are either inferior or superior. Envy, contempt, contentiousness, covetousness, pride, offense, these would all be symptoms.
Respectfully and in all forthrightness your post is displaying some of these symptoms towards me. You're showing contempt at what you see as arrogance on my part. You're becoming more contentious in your posts even as you dispute my ability to speak with any knowledge on the subject. And you're offended that I am too proud to take your advice and learn something.
What's ironic is that this is exactly my interests when discussing whether and when we should be held culpable for our moral/immoral behavior. I do not hold it against you for your actions on this post since I believe it's the devil between us and that you are unaware of it. Since I am aware, not only am I not offended, but God will hold me culpable if in vanity I now return insult for insult.
Unfortunately, I cannot prove to you that I do not think I am smarter than all of the philosophers and theologians who have thought about this for the past 2000 or even 6000 years. This situation requires grace by faith. But I will say that when Jesus was declaring the judgment of cities as pertains to those which were penitent and those which were not, he said this: I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
So in view of the sentiments being expressed by Jesus, being smart and wise would not be any reason for self glory.
I think it would help if you would read some of the masses of stuff written on the subject, before you start teaching your own beliefs. See, for example, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, pages 330 and 331.
Again, I'm not here to teach. I'm here for either agreement or correction. I have already voiced my thoughts on why you would assume I need to educate myself.
I'm using "libertarian free will" and "compatibilist free will" exactly as defined
here. I'm using "bondage of the will" almost exactly as defined by Luther.
Yes I know that you're using these concepts of free will and I know what they are. I would only like to ask you the question of where does the devil who is able to deceive through psycho semantics factor into either of these concepts of free will as pertains to personal responsibility for moral/immoral actions?
I did
not use the phrase "free from sin." I was pointing out that, for example, the sinful murderer still exercises "free will" (in the sense of
here) in the choice of knife or gun.
This example is helpful in describing what you mean. However it does not address the devil, psychological manipulation, and how it factors into whether and when someone should be held responsible for moral/immoral actions.
