ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[godrulz]

Nate: I agree with the gist of what you are saying. Philosophical influences can go both ways.

Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy. He influenced Calvin. Open Theists are not without philosophical influences. They have a few ideas in common with Process thought, but generally disagree with it (more differences than similarities).

Erickson "What does God know and when does He know it" is an attempt to look at both sides even though he is biased against Open Theism. He recognized that some issues are not explicit in the Bible, but are left unresolved or in tension (Pinnock also stated this). Historical, theological, and philosophical factors must be considered in some areas of this study.

The biblical evidence is our ultimate authority.

 

[natewood3]

godrulz,

Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy. He influenced Calvin. Open Theists are not without philosophical influences. They have a few ideas in common with Process thought, but generally disagree with it (more differences than similarities).

Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy, but what do we mean by influenced? Did he see Greek philosophy as the ultimate authority, and made the Bible fit his philosophy? Was it always for the worse or sometimes for the better?

They do have a few ideas in common with process theology (from what I have read anyways; I haven't honestly studied process theology very much). They also have many ideas in common with Pelagians and Socinians, especially libertarian free will, denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge, and a denial of God's ultimate sovereignty. I see the OV more influenced by the Enlightenment, which made man the center, made man have ultimate free will, etc.

Piper stated that three things are true of the modern world:

1) They assumes human autonomy and self-determination.
2) They question all authority.
3) They take the judgment seat to decide if God even exists.

C.S. Lewis put it this way:

The ancient man approached God . . . as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.


This seems to fit what the OVers have done. I am not saying they are willingly and trying to do this, but in their attempt to keep their idea of libertarian free will, they have made themselves the reference and standard by which God is judged. They take ideas from people who were deemed heretical in church history. I have a hard time believing something that was once heretical, but now in our Western culture and time it is considered "biblical."

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy, but what do we mean by influenced? Did he see Greek philosophy as the ultimate authority, and made the Bible fit his philosophy? Was it always for the worse or sometimes for the better?

he made the bible fit his philosophy.

They do have a few ideas in common with process theology (from what I have read anyways; I haven't honestly studied process theology very much). They also have many ideas in common with Pelagians and Socinians, especially libertarian free will, denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge, and a denial of God's ultimate sovereignty. I see the OV more influenced by the Enlightenment, which made man the center, made man have ultimate free will, etc.

the OV does not say God is not sovereign. why do people always accuse it of doing so? and how can one deny libertarian free will? it's everywhere and in everything we do. we always have the choice to say no. that's common sense.

This seems to fit what the OVers have done.

good grief! :nono:

statements like that suggest that you don't know the OV very well.

 

[godrulz]

Open Theism affirms God's ultimate sovereignty. The problem is that the classical view wrongly defines sovereignty (not the biblical view of it). Sovereignty, properly understood, does not negate libertarian free will (God voluntarily chose the type of creation He made. It includes other free moral agents, so His will is no longer the only factor in the reality of the universe. It still is the decisive factor due to His omnicompetence).

 

[natewood3]

GIT,

now if you can show how the OV is logically wrong in regards to say libertarian free will, then please, by all means do so. i'm sure we'd be more than willing to discuss it.

If we are going to discuss the flaws of libertarian free will, would you allow me to summarize John Frame? I cannot come up with any new arguments against because he has already stated 17. I would find it hard to out-do Frame, and would just summarize what he says. If you want to read what he says for yourself, the book if "No Other God: A Response to Open Theism." I do want to discuss these arguments...

1. Scripture does not explicitly teach the existence of libertarian freedom. There is no passage that can explicitly be construed to teach that humans are ultimately free from God's plan and of the rest of human personality. Libertarianism is a technical philosophical notion, which makes various assumptions about the relationship of will to action, the relationship of will to character and desire, and the limitation of God's sovereignty.

2. Scripture never grounds human responsibility in libertarian freedom, or, for that matter, in any other kind of freedom. We are responsible because God made us, owns us, and has a right to evaluate our conduct and actions. He is the Judge, and we are in the dock. According to Scripture, God's authority is the necessary and sufficient ground of human responsibility. Scripture never suggests that the ordaining of a human decision makes the person less responsible.

3. Scripture does not indicate that God places any positive value on libertarian freedom (even granting it does exist). OVers argue that God places such a high value on human freedom and human choices that God gave it to creatures even at the risk of bringing evil into the world. One would assume and expect to see the Scriptures abounding with statements to the effect that causeless free actions by creatures are terribily important to God, that they bring Him glory and are essential to human personality and dignity. However, one does not find such statements.

4. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that in heaven, we will not be free to sin. So the highest state of human existence will be a state without libertarian freedom.

5. Scripture never judges anyone's conduct by reference to libertarian freedom. Scripture never declares someone innocent because his conduct was not free in the libertarian sense; not does it ever declare someone guilty by ponting to their libertarian freedom. Judas' betrayal was not free in the libertarian sense, even in Boyd's analysis. Yet he was certainly very responsible.

6. In civil courts, libertarian freedom is never assumed to be a condition of moral responsibility. Consider Hubert, the bank robber. If guilt presupposed libertarian freedom, the prosecutor would have to show that Hubert's decision to rob a bank had no cause in order to show that Hubert was guilty. What evidence could a prosecutor bring to prove that? Proving a negative is always difficult, and it would clearly be impossible to show that Hubert's inner decision was completely independent of any divine decree, natural cause, character, or motive. Libertarianism would make it impossible to prove the guilt of anybody.

7. Indeed, civil courts normally assume the opposite of libertarianism, namely, that the conduct of criminals arises from motives. Accordingly, courts often spend much time discussing whether the defendant had an adequate motive to commit the crime. If Hubert's actions had no motives or causes, then the court would likely judged him insane and therefore NOT responsible, rather than guilty. Such an act would be an accident, not a purposeful choice. Indeed, if Hubert's action was completely independent of his character, desires, and motives, one could well ask in what sense this actrion was really Hubert's. Libertarianism, instead of being the foundation for moral responsibility, it destroys it.

We will discuss these for now...

 

[God_Is_Truth]

If we are going to discuss the flaws of libertarian free will, would you allow me to summarize John Frame? I cannot come up with any new arguments against because he has already stated 17. I would find it hard to out-do Frame, and would just summarize what he says. If you want to read what he says for yourself, the book if "No Other God: A Response to Open Theism." I do want to discuss these arguments...

very well then

1. Scripture does not explicitly teach the existence of libertarian freedom. There is no passage that can explicitly be construed to teach that humans are ultimately free from God's plan and of the rest of human personality. Libertarianism is a technical philosophical notion, which makes various assumptions about the relationship of will to action, the relationship of will to character and desire, and the limitation of God's sovereignty.

before one can claim that no passage in scripture says that we are free from God's plan, one must show where the scripture says that we are all under God's plan. where does it say we are under one big, divinely controlled, sovereignly ordained plan that has been created from start to end in eternity past?

secondly, who said that we are free from human personality? i never said we were nor am i aware of any other libertarian who does. we are indeed influenced by it greatly, but human personality is not a determinent in our choice. it influence, suggests, and persuades us towards decisions, but it does not alone determine what choice we actually make.

and thirdly, again, libertarian will is not in the least a limitation of the sovereignty of God.

2. Scripture never grounds human responsibility in libertarian freedom, or, for that matter, in any other kind of freedom. We are responsible because God made us, owns us, and has a right to evaluate our conduct and actions. He is the Judge, and we are in the dock. According to Scripture, God's authority is the necessary and sufficient ground of human responsibility. Scripture never suggests that the ordaining of a human decision makes the person less responsible.

Scripture tells us that we are responsible for our sins. on this we agree. the nature of justice however demands that for us to be responsible for our actions, they must be consciuosly and coherently done by us. thus, insanity is a reasonable exception if it truly is the case. also, if someone forced you to do something completely against your will and control, you should not be held responsible as it's not your fault.

if i build a robot and program him to blow up a building, who is at fault? the robot or the person who programmed him? surely not the robot for he was doing the only thing he could do. the programmer should be at fault for creating the robot and prgoramming it to do such a thing.

it is the same way with us. if we are just robots who can only do what we are programmed to do (ordained/predestined), then God should be responsible for programming us that way. it would be his fault by the nature of justice.

there is no problem with this in regards to scripture. in fact, it seems required.

3. Scripture does not indicate that God places any positive value on libertarian freedom (even granting it does exist). OVers argue that God places such a high value on human freedom and human choices that God gave it to creatures even at the risk of bringing evil into the world. One would assume and expect to see the Scriptures abounding with statements to the effect that causeless free actions by creatures are terribily important to God, that they bring Him glory and are essential to human personality and dignity. However, one does not find such statements.

either God created us with the ability to do evil or he created us with the necessity to do evil. if we don't have libertarian free will, then the evil in this world is the result of our being programmed by God to do the evil.

i do not see why we should expect to see statements all over scripture about this though. Scripture contains what we need to know. it's not a textbook or an encylopedia. one does not need to know of libertarian free will to know that one has sinned and needs salvation. so i think the point here brought up by Frame is irrelevent.

4. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that in heaven, we will not be free to sin. So the highest state of human existence will be a state without libertarian freedom.

where does the scripture state that?

5. Scripture never judges anyone's conduct by reference to libertarian freedom. Scripture never declares someone innocent because his conduct was not free in the libertarian sense; not does it ever declare someone guilty by ponting to their libertarian freedom. Judas' betrayal was not free in the libertarian sense, even in Boyd's analysis. Yet he was certainly very responsible.

scripture judges people in regards to their sins. their sins can only be their own if they were the ones who actually carried them out in their right minds. if they were simply programmed to carry them out, then to hold them responsible is injustice.

please show me where Boyd states that Judas was not free in his analysis.

6. In civil courts, libertarian freedom is never assumed to be a condition of moral responsibility. Consider Hubert, the bank robber. If guilt presupposed libertarian freedom, the prosecutor would have to show that Hubert's decision to rob a bank had no cause in order to show that Hubert was guilty. What evidence could a prosecutor bring to prove that? Proving a negative is always difficult, and it would clearly be impossible to show that Hubert's inner decision was completely independent of any divine decree, natural cause, character, or motive. Libertarianism would make it impossible to prove the guilt of anybody.

what? all libertarian will states is that one can truly choose any option that is presented to them and that their choice is not foreknown or predestined. to say that "the prosecutor would have to show that Hubert's decision to rob a bank had no cause" in order to show him guilty is ludicrous. all the prosecutor would have to do is show that Hubert was in his right mind and that he did the crime on his own merit and that the possibility of not comitting the crime truly existed (although the last part may not be necessary). this is a strawman and thus, irrelevent.

7. Indeed, civil courts normally assume the opposite of libertarianism, namely, that the conduct of criminals arises from motives. Accordingly, courts often spend much time discussing whether the defendant had an adequate motive to commit the crime. If Hubert's actions had no motives or causes, then the court would likely judged him insane and therefore NOT responsible, rather than guilty. Such an act would be an accident, not a purposeful choice. Indeed, if Hubert's action was completely independent of his character, desires, and motives, one could well ask in what sense this actrion was really Hubert's. Libertarianism, instead of being the foundation for moral responsibility, it destroys it.

the opposite of libertarianism is that people have motives? good grief! :nono: let me say this clearly, libertarianism affirms that people have motives. where would one ever get the idea that people didn't?

We will discuss these for now...

if we ever get the misconceptions out the way :chuckle:

blessings,

GIT

 

[godrulz]

Frame's arguments are weak. It is self-evident that we have free will. We are responsible for exercising it (good or evil). Creating free moral agents with self-determination is the right and wisdom of a sovereign God. It does not threaten Him, but makes Him more glorious in that He does not have to be a control freak. We are capable of genuine love and creative freedom. The deterministic alternative is only worthy of a cosmic Dictator. It is a confusion of categories to think God is ultimately causal, while we alone are responsible for our choices.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston originally wrote: But here's my question: Where does it get you to convince a Calvinist that God can change?

Knight writes
Where does it get me? I really don't know what that means.

What I mean is, what advantage do you gain with this point in the debate between so-called Calvinists and Open Theism? Say a so-called (quasi-) Calvinist agrees and says: "Yes, I see what you mean. I would agree that God changes in the way you describe," what then?

Knight writes
If you are asking why I do it ...

I'm not.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston originally wrote: But here's my question: Where does it get you to convince a Calvinist that God can change?

What I mean is, what advantage do you gain with this point in the debate between so-called Calvinists and Open Theism? Say a so-called (quasi-) Calvinist agrees and says: "Yes, I see what you mean. I would agree that God changes in the way you describe," what then?

Well the first thing I would realize is they might be making ice cubes in hell. :devil:

But seriously folks...
The notion that God cannot change is one of the main stumbling blocks for people who think that God has decreed all things in advance. And if God is capable of change we can then examine WHY God might change.... and what we find is that God is a Living God and God changes to remain a righteous God when dealing with humans that He has decreed possess a will of their own apart from Him.

An example of this would go as follows.....

- God is always righteous.
- Due to sin man is NOT righteous.
- All men are subject to the penalty of sin which is spiritual death.
- Yet God is also merciful.
- God has created a way for man to right Himself to God and have life.
- If a man repents and turns to Christ God changes how He will handle this man and no longer holds him accountable for his sin.

That last point is a point that no Calvinist should reject since most Calvinists rightly argue that man does not have the ability to save Himself. It is God that is doing to righteous work of salvation and therefore if any change is occurring it is with God as He demonstrates His grace and mercy to those that accept the work that Christ has done on the cross.

If God could not change.... God could not be truly merciful and therefore could not remain righteous. If God could not change God could not be truthful when He stated He had repented that He had made man or repented that He had made Saul King or repented of the disaster He said He was bringing upon Nineveh.

The ability to change is essential to God's righteous character which by the way doesn't change.

But even more interesting is the fact that we have God's own word and God describes Himself as a God that can change.... God created.... and then He rested! God has been provoked to anger, wrath and jealousy, God has become flesh etc. etc. ,etc.

Therefore.... the thrill in demonstrating God's dynamic character is the same as demonstrating any obvious truth to someone that rejects that truth no matter what the topic is. This topic just happens to be of a larger magnitude.

Think of it this way.... the benefit to demonstrating God's ability to change would be a lot like demonstrating that God gave a new dispensation to the apostle Paul. I think you might be able to relate to that.

 

[natewood3]

GIT,

before one can claim that no passage in scripture says that we are free from God's plan, one must show where the scripture says that we are all under God's plan. where does it say we are under one big, divinely controlled, sovereignly ordained plan that has been created from start to end in eternity past?

Well, let us think about this:

Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

That would seem like a big, divinely controlled, sovereignly ordained plan to me...

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 1:12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

That would also look the same way as above...

secondly, who said that we are free from human personality? i never said we were nor am i aware of any other libertarian who does. we are indeed influenced by it greatly, but human personality is not a determinent in our choice. it influence, suggests, and persuades us towards decisions, but it does not alone determine what choice we actually make.

Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

Luk 6:43 "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit,
Luk 6:44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.
Luk 6:45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

I agree our personality is not the sole reason for our choice, but does not Jesus' words seem to indicate that we choose what we desire and that we bear that which we are, not that which is contrary to our beings and hearts? If we are unsaved, we will never bear forth good fruit on our own. Bad trees do not bear good fruit, nor do good trees bear bad fruit. We speak and act in accordance with our hearts...

Scripture tells us that we are responsible for our sins. on this we agree. the nature of justice however demands that for us to be responsible for our actions, they must be consciuosly and coherently done by us. thus, insanity is a reasonable exception if it truly is the case. also, if someone forced you to do something completely against your will and control, you should not be held responsible as it's not your fault.

Responsibility does include conscious and willful actions, but no Calvinist argues that we are not conscious or that we do not commit willful actions when we sin. God does not force or coerce. Responsibility does not presuppose libertarian freedom.

if i build a robot and program him to blow up a building, who is at fault? the robot or the person who programmed him? surely not the robot for he was doing the only thing he could do. the programmer should be at fault for creating the robot and prgoramming it to do such a thing.

it is the same way with us. if we are just robots who can only do what we are programmed to do (ordained/predestined), then God should be responsible for programming us that way. it would be his fault by the nature of justice.

God does not build robots, contrary to what you seem to be implying. We have free will, and we make real decisions and choices, and those decisions and choices make differences. That does not in any way require libertarian freedom or a denial of God's foreknowledge of future decisions.

either God created us with the ability to do evil or he created us with the necessity to do evil. if we don't have libertarian free will, then the evil in this world is the result of our being programmed by God to do the evil.

So if someone is born with a disposition to alcoholism, as most of my family is, then it is God's fault and He should be blamed for their habitual alcoholism? Most serial killers, etc, have different genetic makeup than most normal human beings, so does that mean they are no longer responsible? Do they have to necessarily murder just because they have a predisposition? I probably have a predisposition to be an alcoholic also, however, I have never found out because I have never drank even a drink, so I don't know for sure. If I was to start drinking and became an alcoholic, would it not be my fault?

where does the scripture state that?

Will we be able to sin in heaven? Will there be sin in heaven? Will there be suffering or evil in heaven? Come on...that is basic theology...

scripture judges people in regards to their sins. their sins can only be their own if they were the ones who actually carried them out in their right minds. if they were simply programmed to carry them out, then to hold them responsible is injustice.

Your idea of "programmed" is not what Calvinists teach. You would search in vain, I believe, to find a Calvinist teaching we are all programmed to do whatever God wants. Yes, we will ultimately do what God wills. We will also ultimately do what we desire. We will ultimately make free choices and decisions.

please show me where Boyd states that Judas was not free in his analysis.

See "God of the Possible"

what? all libertarian will states is that one can truly choose any option that is presented to them and that their choice is not foreknown or predestined. to say that "the prosecutor would have to show that Hubert's decision to rob a bank had no cause" in order to show him guilty is ludicrous. all the prosecutor would have to do is show that Hubert was in his right mind and that he did the crime on his own merit and that the possibility of not comitting the crime truly existed (although the last part may not be necessary). this is a strawman and thus, irrelevent.

I do not think it is irrelevant. Libertarianism teaches one must have the power to choose contrary to what he really did choose. If one can not choose a different option at the time of the action than what he really chose, then his choice is not "free." In other words, for someone to be guilty, you must prove that they could have chosen otherwise, that his decision was not influenced by anything else.

Why did would someone rob a bank? Would they not have motives? If they did have motives, where did those motives come from? Were those motives not decisive in his choice? If the motives did not exist, then would the person still have chose to rob the bank?


Few questions:

Does God ever coerce or force events or actions to take place?

Are we ALWAYS free in the libertarian sense, or does God sometimes work with us in a "compabilistic" sense?

 

[godrulz]

Unbelieving thinkers intuitively have a problem with a God that supposedly predestines everything. This seems like fatalism and makes God responsible for evil. It is a stumbling block to the atheists. The problem is not the 'mystery' of God, but a wrong concept of who He is and His ways. They reject a straw man caricature. The issue of God's nature and ways is an important one. We do not want to misrepresent Him as it affects our relationship with Him and our sharing of the Gospel.

Claiming that God is hyper-sovereign and can do what He wants, no matter how unreasonable, is simplistic (though half true; He created other moral agents with influence and creative choices). Open Theists, unbelievers, and other Christian thinkers recognize that some of the classical, traditional understanding of God is problematic and incoherent. One has to understand the issues or we tend to uncritically accept views that we have not thought out well.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by natewood3

GIT,



Well, let us think about this:

Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

That would seem like a big, divinely controlled, sovereignly ordained plan to me...

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 1:12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

That would also look the same way as above...



Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

Luk 6:43 "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit,
Luk 6:44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.
Luk 6:45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

I agree our personality is not the sole reason for our choice, but does not Jesus' words seem to indicate that we choose what we desire and that we bear that which we are, not that which is contrary to our beings and hearts? If we are unsaved, we will never bear forth good fruit on our own. Bad trees do not bear good fruit, nor do good trees bear bad fruit. We speak and act in accordance with our hearts...



Responsibility does include conscious and willful actions, but no Calvinist argues that we are not conscious or that we do not commit willful actions when we sin. God does not force or coerce. Responsibility does not presuppose libertarian freedom.





God does not build robots, contrary to what you seem to be implying. We have free will, and we make real decisions and choices, and those decisions and choices make differences. That does not in any way require libertarian freedom or a denial of God's foreknowledge of future decisions.



So if someone is born with a disposition to alcoholism, as most of my family is, then it is God's fault and He should be blamed for their habitual alcoholism? Most serial killers, etc, have different genetic makeup than most normal human beings, so does that mean they are no longer responsible? Do they have to necessarily murder just because they have a predisposition? I probably have a predisposition to be an alcoholic also, however, I have never found out because I have never drank even a drink, so I don't know for sure. If I was to start drinking and became an alcoholic, would it not be my fault?



Will we be able to sin in heaven? Will there be sin in heaven? Will there be suffering or evil in heaven? Come on...that is basic theology...



Your idea of "programmed" is not what Calvinists teach. You would search in vain, I believe, to find a Calvinist teaching we are all programmed to do whatever God wants. Yes, we will ultimately do what God wills. We will also ultimately do what we desire. We will ultimately make free choices and decisions.



See "God of the Possible"



I do not think it is irrelevant. Libertarianism teaches one must have the power to choose contrary to what he really did choose. If one can not choose a different option at the time of the action than what he really chose, then his choice is not "free." In other words, for someone to be guilty, you must prove that they could have chosen otherwise, that his decision was not influenced by anything else.

Why did would someone rob a bank? Would they not have motives? If they did have motives, where did those motives come from? Were those motives not decisive in his choice? If the motives did not exist, then would the person still have chose to rob the bank?


Few questions:

Does God ever coerce or force events or actions to take place?

Are we ALWAYS free in the libertarian sense, or does God sometimes work with us in a "compabilistic" sense?

Good luck on getting GIT to not :sheep: on those. He's a hyper-open theist if I've ever seen one.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Good luck on getting GIT to not :sheep: on those. He's a hyper-open theist if I've ever seen one.

i'll take that as a compliment

give me a little time, and i'll respond to nate's points.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by natewood3

GIT,



Well, let us think about this:

Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

That would seem like a big, divinely controlled, sovereignly ordained plan to me...

not even close. verse 28 says for all who love God (the believers) all things will work together for good. in other words, they will bring about good results for them. does God have to control what events take place in order to state that he's going to bring about good things as a result of them? of course not.

verse 29-30 is about the sequence of events that happens to those who are believers. it is a statement of God's intended course of action to those who accept the gospel. there is no indication anywhere that all things, big and small, are part of a big, sovereignly ordained plan.

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 1:12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

That would also look the same way as above...

nope, it's the same as my response above. we have been predestined to be like Christ as a result of our accepting the gospel. God chose from the foundation of the world to do this to all who believed in him. to say that he also predestined which people specifically he would do it to, is reading into the text more than is there.

I agree our personality is not the sole reason for our choice, but does not Jesus' words seem to indicate that we choose what we desire and that we bear that which we are, not that which is contrary to our beings and hearts? If we are unsaved, we will never bear forth good fruit on our own. Bad trees do not bear good fruit, nor do good trees bear bad fruit. We speak and act in accordance with our hearts...

keep in mind that it's an analogy. i agree that we bear fruit of what we are. but there is no indication anywhere that says we can't change what we want to bear with the help of the Father drawing us and the conviction of the Holy Spirit on our sins. i agree that until we are truly reborn we can't do good works for God, but we can desire to change what we are once God has begun to draw and convict us. once we agree to God's terms (repentence, trust in Jesus for salvation), then God enables us to good works for him.

Responsibility does include conscious and willful actions, but no Calvinist argues that we are not conscious or that we do not commit willful actions when we sin. God does not force or coerce. Responsibility does not presuppose libertarian freedom.

a willfull action can only take place when one really has a choice. if all i can do is what i have been programmed to do then i have no will of my own, only the will of whoever programmed me.

also, if God has this "sovereignly ordained plan" that has existed from all time, then am i free to do apart from what he has ordained? what if i don't want to do what God has ordained that i do?

God does not build robots, contrary to what you seem to be implying. We have free will, and we make real decisions and choices, and those decisions and choices make differences. That does not in any way require libertarian freedom or a denial of God's foreknowledge of future decisions.

i'm saying that if we can't make our own choices or decisions then we are robots programmed by God. if God knows what we are going to choose before we choose it then we aren't free. we can only make the choice that God knows we will make. choice becomes an illusion, a figment of our imagination. the only thing that can be done by us is to "choose" what God foreknew we would. free will requires an absence of exhaustive foreknowledge by definition.

So if someone is born with a disposition to alcoholism, as most of my family is, then it is God's fault and He should be blamed for their habitual alcoholism? Most serial killers, etc, have different genetic makeup than most normal human beings, so does that mean they are no longer responsible? Do they have to necessarily murder just because they have a predisposition? I probably have a predisposition to be an alcoholic also, however, I have never found out because I have never drank even a drink, so I don't know for sure. If I was to start drinking and became an alcoholic, would it not be my fault?

just because you are born with a disposition to something does not necessitate that you will give into it. that's where free will comes into play. you are the ultimate one who makes the choice to drink or smoke or whatever. no one made you.

my point was that free will has to truly be free in order to exist. it can't be foreknown, foreordained, or sovereignly coerced. either we are truly free or we are doing the only thing we can do.

Will we be able to sin in heaven? Will there be sin in heaven? Will there be suffering or evil in heaven? Come on...that is basic theology...

i don't know if we'll be able to sin. i don't believe there will be sin however. but, you said that scripture says this. i want to know where it does.

Your idea of "programmed" is not what Calvinists teach. You would search in vain, I believe, to find a Calvinist teaching we are all programmed to do whatever God wants. Yes, we will ultimately do what God wills. We will also ultimately do what we desire. We will ultimately make free choices and decisions.

i know they don't teach it, they teach an inconsistent theology. they say that on the one hand everything is part of God's big plan, sovereignly controlled down the slightest detail. and yet on the other hand they say that we are fully responsible for what we do in regards to our actions. they simply ignore the logical problem that the two positions have if put together. namely, that they are mutually exclusive positions. either we truly have free will and are truly responsible or else we don't, everything is controlled by God's sovereign hand in his plan and we are just pawns on a board moving as God moves us.

See "God of the Possible"

i haven't read that, but hope to soon.

I do not think it is irrelevant. Libertarianism teaches one must have the power to choose contrary to what he really did choose. If one can not choose a different option at the time of the action than what he really chose, then his choice is not "free." In other words, for someone to be guilty, you must prove that they could have chosen otherwise, that his decision was not influenced by anything else.

no, one would not have to prove that. libertarianism is assumed in a court of law. the defendent would have to prove that it was the only thing the person could do in order to be spared. you have it backwards.

Why did would someone rob a bank? Would they not have motives? If they did have motives, where did those motives come from? Were those motives not decisive in his choice? If the motives did not exist, then would the person still have chose to rob the bank?

motives do not necessitate a choice of action, they only influence it.

Does God ever coerce or force events or actions to take place?

sure, creation would be an example.

Are we ALWAYS free in the libertarian sense, or does God sometimes work with us in a "compabilistic" sense?

as far as i can tell, we are always free.

God bless,

GIT

 

[natewood3]

GIT,

not even close. verse 28 says for all who love God (the believers) all things will work together for good. in other words, they will bring about good results for them. does God have to control what events take place in order to state that he's going to bring about good things as a result of them? of course not.

All things work together for good for those that love God AND are called according to HIS purpose. God is working all things together for THEM people. How do we know this? Because of the next verses.

verse 29-30 is about the sequence of events that happens to those who are believers. it is a statement of God's intended course of action to those who accept the gospel. there is no indication anywhere that all things, big and small, are part of a big, sovereignly ordained plan.

These verses are the sequence in which they became believers. These verses are the ground and reason we know that God is working all things together for good.

Where in the world do you get that these verses are God's "intended course of action" to those who accept the Gospel??? Where is there anything of "accepting the Gospel," or even "faith" for that matter? Faith is the product of the "calling." Notice "calling" leads to justification, which is only by faith. That justification always leads to glorification. There are no drop outs.

The word "predestined" could also be translated as a "predesigned plan." God has a plan for all believers: they will be conformed to the image of His Son. God foreknew us, that is, He loved us intimately. He did not love all people intimately. He loved all the world with an impersonal love, but this foreloving is more than that.

nope, it's the same as my response above. we have been predestined to be like Christ as a result of our accepting the gospel. God chose from the foundation of the world to do this to all who believed in him. to say that he also predestined which people specifically he would do it to, is reading into the text more than is there.

Once again, I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about OUR action in Ephesians 1. It is ALL God's work, not ours. There is absolutely nothing about our "accepting Christ."

God predestined "us." "Us" must refer to a non-entity I suppose. That is comforting to know....

keep in mind that it's an analogy. i agree that we bear fruit of what we are. but there is no indication anywhere that says we can't change what we want to bear with the help of the Father drawing us and the conviction of the Holy Spirit on our sins. i agree that until we are truly reborn we can't do good works for God, but we can desire to change what we are once God has begun to draw and convict us. once we agree to God's terms (repentence, trust in Jesus for salvation), then God enables us to good works for him.

You seem to be agreeing that when God draws and convicts, it can cause us to desire Him? You say that "once we agree to God's terms, then God enables us to good works for him," but what makes you think that it isn't God that enables us to repent or to desire Him?

a willfull action can only take place when one really has a choice. if all i can do is what i have been programmed to do then i have no will of my own, only the will of whoever programmed me.

I have already said this, but we are not "programmed" by God to do whatever He wants us to do. We much of the time do what WE want to do, but "even the wrath of man shall praise Him."

Pro 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

Pro 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

Does God say since He is the One establishing steps, we are not longer free and we no longer plan our own ways?

also, if God has this "sovereignly ordained plan" that has existed from all time, then am i free to do apart from what he has ordained? what if i don't want to do what God has ordained that i do?

Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Rom 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
Rom 11:35 "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?"
Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

You act as though you can actually KNOW what God ordained, and then say, "No, I don't think I want to do that Lord." Most of what God ordains is that we freely carry out His plans according to our intentions and purposes, which are really His purposes. We simply act in accordance with what we want to do. We are never coerced or forced by God to do anything.

God knows all possibilities, and it is possible for you to have done something other than you decided to do, but God already knew what you would do and ordained that it would be so.

i'm saying that if we can't make our own choices or decisions then we are robots programmed by God. if God knows what we are going to choose before we choose it then we aren't free. we can only make the choice that God knows we will make. choice becomes an illusion, a figment of our imagination. the only thing that can be done by us is to "choose" what God foreknew we would. free will requires an absence of exhaustive foreknowledge by definition.

Will you do me a favor? Give me a quote from a Calvinist that teaches that we are robots programmed by God.

If God foreknows what you will do, it is because that is what you will do and would have done in that situation. If God foreknew I would choose to buy a white car over a neon pink car, did that make me buy the white car, even though I could have bought the neon pink car? NO! God foreknew it because He knew I would act in accordance with my desires and preferences. I never act contrary to my preferences and desires, unless I am forced to do so by something external, such as my boss or professor makes me do so.

Did Peter and Judas make real decisions and were they accountable?

my point was that free will has to truly be free in order to exist. it can't be foreknown, foreordained, or sovereignly coerced. either we are truly free or we are doing the only thing we can do.

You are creating a false dilemma. We are truly free and we only do what we want, which God already foreknows. Foreknowledge and free will are NOT incompatible.

i don't know if we'll be able to sin. i don't believe there will be sin however. but, you said that scripture says this. i want to know where it does.

Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
Heb 12:23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new."

Rev 21:26 They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.
Rev 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 22:3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.

they say that on the one hand everything is part of God's big plan, sovereignly controlled down the slightest detail. and yet on the other hand they say that we are fully responsible for what we do in regards to our actions. they simply ignore the logical problem that the two positions have if put together. namely, that they are mutually exclusive positions. either we truly have free will and are truly responsible or else we don't, everything is controlled by God's sovereign hand in his plan and we are just pawns on a board moving as God moves us.

I feel you have not thoroughly read Calvinists on the doctrine of providence and divine decrees...if you have read them, you have not undestood it.

sure, creation would be an example.

I meant, and it was my fault for not specifying, does God ever coerce or force individuals to carry out an action? Does God ever have to coerce to make sure His overall plan is not thwarted? Could or can God ever coerce or force a course of action to take place?

 

[godrulz]

Ephesians 1 is about corporate vs individual election (see "God's strategy in human history").

Romans 8:29 The way all things work for the good is for God to conform us to the character and image of Christ regardless of the circumstances. It does not mean that God makes evil, good or predestines everything that happens.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight
If God could not change.... God could not be truly merciful and therefore could not remain righteous. If God could not change God could not be truthful when He stated He had repented that He had made man or repented that He had made Saul King or repented of the disaster He said He was bringing upon Nineveh.

Does Knight change? Or has he always made ridiculous observations like that?

I think you're confusing God's character or attributes with His actions. Does God's attributes change? No.

Does God's actions change from time to time? Yes. But that does not disprove immutability. That term "repent" is an anthropomorphism. Its just trying to help ascribe an emotion of God's attitude so we can understand the context.

To sit there and say "God changes or repents the same way a man does" is heretical. How can you liken the Almighty God to a depraved man?

The immutability of God stands the test. It glorifies God to the hilt proclaims His everlasting faithfulness to His sheep.

If you wanna worship a god that changes, worship Buddha or Mohammad.

They changed.



In fact, they are dead.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Swordsman

I think you're confusing God's character or attributes with His actions. Does God's attributes change? No.

Who ever said that God's character or attributes change? No Open theist that I know, and certainly not Knight.

To sit there and say "God changes or repents the same way a man does" is heretical. How can you liken the Almighty God to a depraved man?

Why do you add the phrase "the same way man does" when no Open Theist would make such a sloppy assertion, since man can be fickle and repents of sin?

You argue against straw men, Swordsman.

That term "repent" is an anthropomorphism. Its just trying to help ascribe an emotion of God's attitude so we can understand the context.

Do you agree then that God's emotions change depending on the circumstances? If not, can you please explain what this figure of speech stands for?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Does Knight change? Or has he always made ridiculous observations like that?

:sigh:

I think you're confusing God's character or attributes with His actions. Does God's attributes change? No.

I never said they did.

Does God's actions change from time to time? Yes. But that does not disprove immutability. That term "repent" is an anthropomorphism. Its just trying to help ascribe an emotion of God's attitude so we can understand the context.

If "repent" is an anthropomorphism then could you please explain the anthropomorphism to us?

In other words.... what does "repent" mean if indeed it is an anthropomorphism? What type of behavior or emotion is it describing?

To sit there and say "God changes or repents the same way a man does" is heretical. How can you liken the Almighty God to a depraved man?

Hey swordsman!

I am over here!

Here I am! :wave:

You can debate me if you like.... but please debate me, and what I ACTUALLY say. It's as if you are responding to someone else entirely.

You continue....

The immutability of God stands the test. It glorifies God to the hilt proclaims His everlasting faithfulness to His sheep.

If you wanna worship a god that changes, worship Buddha or Mohammad.

They changed.

Oh Hilston..... where are you?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by natewood3

GIT,

All things work together for good for those that love God AND are called according to HIS purpose. God is working all things together for THEM people. How do we know this? Because of the next verses.

The question is WHY do all things work together for good? Because God has predestined every circumstance to be good to us? More likely is that God uses every circumstance to bring about good things for us. Suffering brings about good character and perseverance. Good times bring about strong faith and praises for God. And in the end, all things work for our sanctification through Jesus as he works in us to produce good works. Saying that this is about circumstances is a stretch that leaves conflict with many other places in scripture.

These verses are the sequence in which they became believers. These verses are the ground and reason we know that God is working all things together for good.

They are the set of events that happens to those who believe, yes. God calls all of us, it is up to us to respond to the calling though. Once we do, God predestines us to be like his Son, he justifies us and then glorifies us through the Son.

Where in the world do you get that these verses are God's "intended course of action" to those who accept the Gospel??? Where is there anything of "accepting the Gospel," or even "faith" for that matter? Faith is the product of the "calling." Notice "calling" leads to justification, which is only by faith. That justification always leads to glorification. There are no drop outs.

Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Faith is not the product of anything, it’s about trust and repentance, something we can all do. We all have faith in something but most have it in the wrong thing. Only faith in Jesus will save. The order of events are not causatively linked together. It is just stating what has occurred to all believers. All are called by God to be holy, all are predestined to be like the Son, all are justified and all will be glorified. Anything beyond that is reading into the text.

The word "predestined" could also be translated as a "predesigned plan." God has a plan for all believers: they will be conformed to the image of His Son. God foreknew us, that is, He loved us intimately. He did not love all people intimately. He loved all the world with an impersonal love, but this foreloving is more than that.

Nowhere does it say he loved us specifically. it says that Christ foreknew the group of believers as a whole, but nowhere does it say he knew who was in that group individually.

Once again, I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about OUR action in Ephesians 1. It is ALL God's work, not ours. There is absolutely nothing about our "accepting Christ."

God predestined "us." "Us" must refer to a non-entity I suppose. That is comforting to know....

Where did I suggest that any of those actions were our own? I agree that in that passage Paul is describing God’s actions in relation to us. But this does not mean that everything in all of existence or that everything in regards to our salvation is only God’s work. That’s reading into the text as well.

You seem to be agreeing that when God draws and convicts, it can cause us to desire Him? You say that "once we agree to God's terms, then God enables us to good works for him," but what makes you think that it isn't God that enables us to repent or to desire Him?

Why would God say “repent and live� if he was the one did it?

I have already said this, but we are not "programmed" by God to do whatever He wants us to do. We much of the time do what WE want to do, but "even the wrath of man shall praise Him."

Pro 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

Pro 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

Does God say since He is the One establishing steps, we are not longer free and we no longer plan our own ways?

If someone picks me up and holds me and controls my every action, my every footstep, my every motion, in what way AM I free?

Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Rom 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
Rom 11:35 "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?"
Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

You act as though you can actually KNOW what God ordained, and then say, "No, I don't think I want to do that Lord." Most of what God ordains is that we freely carry out His plans according to our intentions and purposes, which are really His purposes. We simply act in accordance with what we want to do. We are never coerced or forced by God to do anything.

If God has ordained everything, then everything is also forced for there is no way we can alter what has been ordained. We may not be conscious of this but it still is required logically.

God knows all possibilities, and it is possible for you to have done something other than you decided to do, but God already knew what you would do and ordained that it would be so.

If God already knew what I would do and ordained it to be so then there is no way I could ever have possibly done otherwise. If God ordained A then it’s not possible for me to do ~A. so it’s not possible for me to “have done something other than you decided to do� because what I “decided to do� is what God ordained me to do. I never was free, if that’s the case.

Will you do me a favor? Give me a quote from a Calvinist that teaches that we are robots programmed by God.

If you insist:

“Nothing is more absurd than to think anything at all is done but by the ordination of God….Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass, but what was ordained by Him….The wills of men are so governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which He has fore-ordained� (Cal. Inst., book 1, chapter 16, sect. 3).

Sure sounds like robots to me. What else could “the wills of men are so governed by the will of God� mean?

If God foreknows what you will do, it is because that is what you will do and would have done in that situation. If God foreknew I would choose to buy a white car over a neon pink car, did that make me buy the white car, even though I could have bought the neon pink car? NO! God foreknew it because He knew I would act in accordance with my desires and preferences. I never act contrary to my preferences and desires, unless I am forced to do so by something external, such as my boss or professor makes me do so.

Who says we have to act in accordance with our desires and preferences? I’ve certainly acted “out of character� before. Haven’t you?

Did Peter and Judas make real decisions and were they accountable?

Yep, most definitely.

You are creating a false dilemma. We are truly free and we only do what we want, which God already foreknows. Foreknowledge and free will are NOT incompatible.

LOL oh yes they are. If God knows that in one hour I will watch a tv show then in 1 hour I will watch a tv show. I am not free to play on my computer or go for a walk or hang out with friends or anything like that. I HAVE to watch tv in one hour. Now remember, I have not yet decided what I’m going to do in one hour. But if God foreknows it, then I have no choice but to “choose� to watch tv in one hour.

Here is a formal logic proof that also explains the problems of Gods’ foreknowledge (exhaustive at least) with free will.

Argument for a partially open future-attempt 3

1. I have free will
2. We define free will as the ability to choose equally between two or more options when presented with a choice.
3. For any decision I make to be free, each choice must be contingent.
4. A contingent choice is one where each choice has an equal possibility of being chosen.
5. Let us assume now that we have a choice before us and that God has absolute foreknowledge of what choice I will pick before I pick it.
6. Since his knowledge is absolute, there is no way he can be mistaken about it. In other words, what he knows is absolutely certain.
7. Whatever is absolutely certain cannot be changed. If it could be, it wouldn’t be absolutely certain.
8. Thus, the choice God knows I will make, because it’s absolutely certain, cannot be changed. Whatever choice God knows I will make cannot be changed.
9. Now let us say that I have a decision before me between choice “a� and choice “b�.
10. Let us also say that God has absolute foreknowledge that I will choose choice “a�
11. Thus, from number 6 it follows that my choosing of choice “a� is absolutely certain.
12. It also follows then from number 7 that my decision of choice “a� cannot be changed.
13. It follows that if God knows I will choose “a� then he also knows I will not choose “b�.
14. This knowledge is also absolutely certain and cannot be changed per numbers 6 and 7.
15. Thus, since God is certain that choice “b� will not be chosen by me then choice “b� is not an option I can choose. If I could choose it then God’s knowledge would not be absolutely certain.
16. Since “b� is no longer a choice I can choose then there is not an equal possibility of both “a� or “b� being chosen and the decision is no longer contingent.
17. Since any decision that is not contingent is also not free, per number 3, then this decision is not a free one.
18. Thus, for this decision I do not have a true free will because there is only one choice I can make and that is the one God has absolute foreknowledge of.
19. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future then every decision we make follows the exact same pattern as described here-not contingent and thus not free.
20. Thus, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, then we do not have free will.

Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
Heb 12:23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new."

Rev 21:26 They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.
Rev 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 22:3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.

I don’t see any indication here that says we will lack the ability to sin. I agree with you that we won’t sin, but I’m not sure we’ll lack the capacity and ability.

I feel you have not thoroughly read Calvinists on the doctrine of providence and divine decrees...if you have read them, you have not undestood it.

I admit that I could be wrong about some things. If I am, please show me where and correct me.

I meant, and it was my fault for not specifying, does God ever coerce or force individuals to carry out an action? Does God ever have to coerce to make sure His overall plan is not thwarted? Could or can God ever coerce or force a course of action to take place?

In my opinion, no. could he? Yes, but I don’t think he does.

God bless!

GIT