ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[themuzicman]

Yep, and accordingly, it is the opposite of autonomy. Free-will as you define it, is nothing I want. It is an 'ability to choose differently than my Creator's intentions' and is 1) the definition I use for sin and 2) autonomous filbecarb. We are created to 'remain.' The opposite is death.

So, you serve a God who wills sin, evil, and is unjust. That's not the God of Scripture. This is the problem with what you claim.

Groovy, you are your own authority. What busts my chops more is that Sanders, Pinnock, and Boyd are going about their merry way with their rejected doctrines as if going against 10,000 other theologians is a walk in a blissfully unaware park.

Well, Pinnock has always been an odd theological duck. I'm not sure about the other two.

Again, I question the audacity, credentials, and stability of such men. Can there be a more arrogant thing to do in Christianity?

Sure. You can ignore Scripture all together. The church isn't automatically right all the time. The reformation proved that. Where would we if Martin Luther had followed your advice?

That is, if it wasn't completely provable and completely convincing. As more studied and more careful men than these three continue to address OV theism, there will be a unified stand. It is already happening. One of us is going to get the 'simpleton' award. The doctrines of the OV have been soundly addressed and rejected several times in the past. "Oh those dirty Catholics!" No, those correct Catholics, and Orthodox, and others who have always said these ideas are whack and don't wash.

They have? Really? When?

I don't buy this argument. It doesn't matter if your best friend is there telling you to steal the candy. You are culpable.

Huge difference. You decided that you were stealing the candy. It was your choice. In EDF, you cannot have made the choice because you didn't exist when it became known.

Nor does it matter if your parents were all for it, nor that your conscience didn't bother you. Culpable, culpable, culpable.

Same thing. Your example makes this your choice.

It doesn't matter if the state says it's okay to have an abortion, your parents are for it, and your partner encourages it.
Culpable, culpable, culpable.

Again, your choice.

Foreknowledge requires nothing. You have said just as I have "I don't know the mechanism."

Nor do I. The proof that foreknowledge is incompabible with free will is an age old one that no one has successfully solved:

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

So, the onus is on you to tell us what mechanism gets around this proof.

Muz

 

[Lon]

So, you serve a God who wills sin, evil, and is unjust. That's not the God of Scripture. This is the problem with what you claim.

OV speculates here. Everyone, including OVer's know we do not believe this.

Well, Pinnock has always been an odd theological duck. I'm not sure about the other two.

Thank you. One down, two to go.

Sure. You can ignore Scripture all together. The church isn't automatically right all the time. The reformation proved that. Where would we if Martin Luther had followed your advice?

The RC could have responded. Where would that have put all of us?

They have? Really? When?

John Piper, Millard Erickson, J.I. Packer, and Bruce Ware, the list is huge.

Huge difference. You decided that you were stealing the candy. It was your choice. In EDF, you cannot have made the choice because you didn't exist when it became known.

Same thing. Your example makes this your choice.

Again, your choice.

I address this below in working over the proofs.

Nor do I. The proof that foreknowledge is incompabible with free will is an age old one that no one has successfully solved:

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

So, the onus is on you to tell us what mechanism gets around this proof.

Muz

In the proofs, there are accepted arguments for them, and I concur they are good ones. The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities 9) is this: A person is morally culpable only if he could have acted otherwise. -Philosophy Review

So I will be considering #9. We both note that in multiple proofs, where 3 is the norm specifically because of the problem of attacking any one position successfully topples the end proof, that 10 is ambitious.

If it were me, I'd have tried to find a 3-tier proof for exactly this reason (a ten tier proof tends to be 1) harder to prove 2) a logical quagmire 3) subject to much more scrutiny.

Never-the-less, I do not have much problems with many of the proofs laid out, I'm stating that 10 tier proofs are easier to topple. For me, I'll only address toppling the final proposition. If #9 does not stand, there is no #10 for proof. I am specifically addressing #9 because it is the LFW position of the OV and toppling it in any shape or form will adequately address the OV concern.

The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities again, is this: A person is morally culpable only if he could have acted otherwise. We are born to sin with no other possible choice. How is it that we are born to sin with no other possibility and under the wrath of God? The proof actually denies the truth of scripture: 1) all have sinned and fall short 2) the wages of sin is death. According to this principle, we could not be held morally culpable if we have no other choice.
I address this with several considerations: 1) we are culpable from others decisions. Examples: British criminals were deported to Australia. Children born in Australia were not criminals themselves, but were born under the judgement, not by their choice, but by their birth. They are under a culpable judgement, not by action, but by birth. Morally culpable does not necessitate a decision. The proof above seeks to prove culpability upon choice alone and it fails in this proof for man under the bondage of sin. This consideration alone questions veracity of the proof.
A proof, once questioned, must address and or be modified or it fails.
2) Acting otherwise. This proposition also does not include all considerations. It is a limitation upon the proof because it does not recognize instances of guilt-by-association, guilt by a failure not-to-act, guilt by ignorance, etc. In other words, the proof is too narrow to be true.
If one does not know walking on the grass or driving over a certain limit is an infraction, he had no choice to do otherwise. Ignorance removes his 'choice to do otherwise' but it does not remove the infraction. He is guilty, not by choice but by ignorance (he was not given a choice, perhaps the "Keep off the grass" sign was maliciously removed, or perhaps a tree was blocking the speed limit sign." If he is absolved from the crime, it still does not remove his guilt and culpability (he was still breaking the law). It is only grace (understanding by the court) that will allow him to walk free. He is guilty, not by choice to do otherwise, but by culpability of iinfraction.

#9 topples because it is not true.

Lon

 

[Lon]

Even secular atheists agree with Christian philosophers that square circles are not possible, even for an omnipotent God. In your world, 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time. Don't make me sic logician Clete on you.

I don't know what you are talking about. Man will never know all that is knowable or do all that is doable (straw man or joke?). God alone is omnipotent and omniscient. OT's definition is workable and encompasses your concerns. The issue is honestly not about omnipotence or omniscience (we agree), but about logic. As long as you insist you know what Yoda is eating right now or that there are square circles and married bachelors in the universe, I can't help you. This is what I mean by KISS. You are making things too complicated and dismissing self-evident truths. Appeal to antimony or mystery does not make incoherence coherent in any possible world.

Some are thankful they are not Publicans or tax collectors. I am thankful I am not a Calvinist.

I do not see the position of foreknowledge as akin to 2+2=5 or square-cirlces. We know that these are contradictory. We do not know that foreknowledge is contradictory but only that it appears so.

For instance, we know that Judas hung himself and we know from Acts, that his guts spilled. This only appears contradictory. It is nowhere near equivocation of square-circles.
Foreknowledge of men's actions appears to be contradictory. As with my disproving The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities, you can have a set of proofs that are wrong. Whereas square-circles and bad math are more than apparent but provable contradictions, your asserting that EDF is the same is flat-out equivocation and you know it (it is a guessed assessment and until proven, suspect of a purposeful lie).

 

[godrulz]

Judas and square circles are not parallel to EDF/free will. I am trying to understand Ware on compatibilism. He makes assertions, but I dispute his logic. His starting point is to retain a preconceived idea of sovereignty (beg question), and then he waters down free will concepts to try to make them compatible...if he would have a correct view of sovereignty and free will, there would be no mystery or issue (but he would have to admit that EDF is not possible based on a non-deterministic universe).

 

[Lon]

Judas and square circles are not parallel to EDF/free will. I am trying to understand Ware on compatibilism. He makes assertions, but I dispute his logic. His starting point is to retain a preconceived idea of sovereignty (beg question), and then he waters down free will concepts to try to make them compatible...if he would have a correct view of sovereignty and free will, there would be no mystery or issue (but he would have to admit that EDF is not possible based on a non-deterministic universe).

This is more reasonable assessment on your part. You are good to correct the previous assertion with

Judas and square circles are not parallel to EDF/free will.

Thank you for correcting your previous equivocations. It means a lot.

In Him

Lon

 

[voltaire]

a favorite mantra of OV states that EDF rules out free will. it is true that you cant make any choice other than what God knows that you will do. this does not mean that you are a robot that only follows a predetermined program. all choices are made by you even though you can only choose what God knows you are going to do.
this is my definition of choosing: if your mind picks 1 option among many, you have made a choice. the fact that you could not have chosen otherwise, does not negate the fact that a choice was made by you. If God knows that i will eat steak tommorow, i will still choose to eat steak tommorow because in my mind, i had several options available. once i chose to eat steak, the fact that God knew i would do this does not mean i did not make the steak choice. God did not choose steak for me. i made that choice. God has EDF because God can time travel. all events that have taken place in the physical world are completed. the spirit world that God exists in, does not go by the clock.

 

[Clete]

a favorite mantra of OV states that EDF rules out free will. it is true that you cant make any choice other than what God knows that you will do. this does not mean that you are a robot that only follows a predetermined program. all choices are made by you even though you can only choose what God knows you are going to do.
this is my definition of choosing: if your mind picks 1 option among many, you have made a choice. the fact that you could not have chosen otherwise, does not negate the fact that a choice was made by you. If God knows that i will eat steak tommorow, i will still choose to eat steak tommorow because in my mind, i had several options available. once i chose to eat steak, the fact that God knew i would do this does not mean i did not make the steak choice. God did not choose steak for me. i made that choice. God has EDF because God can time travel. all events that have taken place in the physical world are completed. the spirit world that God exists in, does not go by the clock.

You did not make the choice freely if the choice was known in advance. It is the "fore" in foreknowledge that rationally kills free will.

Here's the logical proof...

Presume that T = You will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am.
(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then it is not logically possible for you to do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7][Definition of logically (im)possible]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[voltaire]

i still made the choice to eat steak. what does it matter if that choice was not made "freely"? i was not coerced. nobody put a gun to my head to choose steak. our will is not purely free anyway even in the OV.

 

[Clete]

i still made the choice to eat steak. what does it matter if that choice was not made "freely"? i was not coerced. nobody put a gun to my head to choose steak. our will is not purely free anyway even in the OV.

The point is that if you didn't choose freely, you didn't choose at all.

"Purely free" is a non-sequitor. An action is free if, when the action is performed, doing otherwise is a real possibility. Stated more concisely, freedom is the ability to do or to do otherwise. That's all it means. It does not mean that one is able to do anything at all that might come to mind. I do not need to have the ability to jump from here to New England in a single bound in order to be "purely free", all I need is two or more genuinely viable options from which to choose.

And it matters because we aren't really talking about amoral actions such as eating steak vs. chicken. We are talking about morality and if my actions aren't free then they are all amoral. Cheating on my wife is not better or worse than spitting my gum out on the side walk or tying my left shoe before my right. Just as a machine is not held morally culpable for what it does, neither could we be if our actions are not chosen by our own will. It is precisely our ability to understand our options and to choose our actions that makes us moral creatures and makes us morally culpable for them. If we are unable to do otherwise then it is fundamentally unjust to be held accountable for what we do because the actions are really only ours if we chose them ourselves and where there are no options there is no choice.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

Some are thankful they are not Publicans or tax collectors. I am thankful I am not a Calvinist.

AMEN!

 

[themuzicman]

BINGO! Your definition of omniscience is "only that which is logically knowable." By your definition, I cannot know these things as they are there to be known, so when I know all that 'can' be known, I'll attain to the OV definition of omniscience.

Except that you can't know all that is logically knowable to God.

Well, of course I agree but NOT according to the OV definition. Glad we both put that heretical doctrine to rest.

Sorry, which church council determined this to be a heresy?

Couldn't have said it better.

I guess I'm off the heresy list, then.

So, because OV can bring God down to a comprehensible level, it somehow is better? I don't think so. This is boxiness in all it's wrappings and making a god in our image.

Comprehensible? Hardly. Try logical.

Moving it? Like from Genesis 22 to Matthew 26:31ff ? The topic is still the same. You said you didn't use Genesis 22 to build against EDF so I moved to another. Unless you put out your pedantic passages, the best I can do is guess (I'm moving to other goalposts because you "don't build your exegesis" off the ones given).

Umm... no. You asked how the Peter story works with OVT. I explained it. Explanation has nothing to do with doctrine. I didn't and don't base my doctrine on the Peter story (or the Genesis story, for that matter.)

But here you are criticizing me for "bad doctrine" based upon these verses.

Moving goalpost.

Haven't I been asking for the pedantic passages all along? Cart 'em out.

Already did. I laid out a foundational case for OVT. That's when you jumped back to Genesis 22 and Peter.

Really? Tell me specifically which the RC rejects and which the Arminians do. You'll find we are actually much more minute in our differences than with OV where the chasm is over God's character.

Chasm? You know, as you slowly lose this debate, you continue insert little emotional arguments such as this to try to puff up your argument.

Everyone believes that God is omnipotent. OVT possibly more so, since we're the only ones who think God can bring about prophecy without foreknowing the exactly how the future will work out to get there.

Everyone believes that God is omniscient. We have a disagreement about what is knowable, but we all embrace omniscience.

Everyone believes that God is omnipresent.

Everyone believes that God is both Just and Loving.

The only real difference is the nature of what God created, and that OVT attempt to reconcile all of these concepts both Scripturally and with internal consistency.

Again, the difference isn't questioning God's character. These topics were carried out within RC walls. These topics are still carried out within those and protestant walls. Boyd was dismissed from the SBC. OV is a disunifying issue. These others are not. There are Calvinists, Arminians, Charasmatics, and even RCers in the SBC.

But OVTers weren't kicked out of ETS.

Additionally, I don't know that Boyd was kicked out of SBC for his OVT views. Might you have some other details on that?

But I'm not being kicked out for my belief. It isn't over major doctrines as is the OV.

Seems to me that Luther was excommunicated, too.

I totally agree. I'm an infra/sup so am much closer in these discussions than OV to the rest of orthodoxy.


Is okay if I do. I don't believe I do, but being labelled an Arminian isn't too bad in my book.

But you still fail your own test.

It just does, if it is a box of some sort, I believe it is given in scripture.

Where?

Actually, I wasn't a 5-pointer when I first appeared here. I've become such because of being here.

That's too bad.

Has mathematical logic problems. The application doesn't work.

LOL

Good company is still a very small party. You have to negate one truth to embrace the other.

No, I just have to disagree with you to embrace the text of Scripture.

So, He was guessing. As stated before, this isn't a good exegetical position from the text or any text for that matter. It has been rejected upon grammatical, textual, logical, and theological precepts.

Again with the emotional language. If you expect X, you aren't guessing at it. You expect it.

I still see it as presumptuous. Redirect this to my position for a moment. 1) I have believed the majority view from scriptural support. The guys that gave us our modern English translations were my language and theology professors 2) You and a very few others, some with questionable degrees (to me) the rest ad hoc and coming from ad hoc schools.

So, your only real rebuttal is that you can't find a historical path or a huge group of people to agree?

My point exactly. I thought the fact that it couldn't be measured was clear enough that a bright guy like you would have picked it up.

So, you want a god who can be measured?

The problem is, you are about a thousand or so individuals, some with school, most without. You are all asserting that your view is correct. It is a pip on my Theological radar.

That's OK.

Because somewhere along the line, the package won't hold together. Your OV is a seive that leaks into an Arminian basin. They will disown you.

It's doing fine so far.

Somewhat, yes, there are similarities. How is being a created thing not being a created thing?

The problem isn't whether it's created or not. The problem is the property you assign to all created things, namely that their actions are determined externally.

Semantics, isn't a robot a created thing?

But more importantly, it's a created thing without a free will.

You said God knew.

Key word: POSSIBLE. Arminaisn don't assert possible.

EXCEPT, I didn't assert here, you did. I said the traditional school you went to discussed God's love and sovereignty. You said, OV did it 'successfully.' That's asserting. This standard line of OV quip is non-engaging and in this particular instance: WRONG!

LOL.. by your assertion..

Sigh, and your response was so close to 100% predicatable just to me! I could have written this line for you, honest.

And?

"Oh, Please, would you?" (I think it'd be the first heavy lifting you've done here for quite a few pages).
All I have to do is point to scripture (like the ones I posted, and reposted above) that shows it as true. I don't have to explain 'how' just that God has it.

Go for it.

Again, in a sense, yes. You, as with any other created thing like a robot, were created, have a start-up date, had nothing pre-existent, were wound up-charged-what have you. All your responses are created. All your thought mechanisms are created. Again, what do you have? Is there anything at all you have that was not created?

Again, the problem isn't that I'm created, but what I'm created with. In your robot theory, you lose the doctrine of justification, because ultimately, we can only do what God has programmed us to do.

If you are created to love, you can't do anything BUT love! Good grief!

In your robot world, yes. In a world with free will, no.

What? You are using a pre-existent love? This is completely confusing to me about what you are attempting to say. Whatever we do is the result of being created, even if it is 'plugging into' some pre-existent love-stream or whatever this is. You accuse me of mystery here when I've said all along that love is a created response put in us by a loving God who values love created in His creation. It has a date stamp as far as I'm aware. What can a created being have or do that isn't put there?

Free will. Make choices that aren't knowable before they're made.

Possibly my question above will help you explain this further. It is lost as some esoteric definition of love where we all pre-existed in a love-stream of some kind. I dunno. It is easier for me to say that we were 'plugged in' but that love still has a start-up date in created beings despite if the current always existed or not.

When did God start loving?

God can't created us already dedicated to the good of another?

He can. He just didn.t

Adam didn't love Eve because he was made that way? You seem pretty definite with what you are trying to express but I'm not seeing how this is all addressing the fact that we are created beings and that everything about us has a start-date.

OK, you're trying to make this an all or nothing deal. Just because you embrace a robot doesn't mean that we can't have a free will being that has desires, which he may choose to follow or reject.

Because they allowed Satan to do it. The fruit was the one thing they weren't allowed to touch. They allowed Satan to gum up the works. Allowing him to confuse them wasn't the sin. It was specifically, allowing him to redirect their directions/programming/parameters that caused sin to enter.

How can they "allow" something, if they're just robots? Doesn't that go back to the programmer "allowing" it?

It is against a dual nature. Something Adam and Eve did not have. They had no knowledge between good and evil (that's the name of the tree they ate from).

But they did know right from wrong with respect to the tree.

No, 2 is incorrect. The act of sinning first, required an element that would usurp love and obedience. With no Satan, there is no Fall. I do not believe Adam and Eve would ever have without this external, already broken-sinning element. The sin transfered at the moment at which Adam and Eve decided against their nature, to partake, not because God put it there, but because Satan put it there. Satan gave them impetous for the choice or it would not have happened. Satan came up with the 'ability to do otherwise.' Therefore 3) doesn't follow 2).

So, you're saying that Adam and Eve can act against their programming?

Muz

 

[voltaire]

Clete. you say that when there are no options, there is no choice. you say that if we had no choice other than to cheat on our wife(an example), we cannot be held morally culpable for our actions.
for 3 years, i was a fornicator. God knew from eternity past that i would be a fornicator during that time. each time that i fornicated, i had no other option but to do so. did i know this? NO. we sin with our mind. each time that i sinned, there was a choice to be made in my mind. i knew that i did not have to have sex. having sex was NOT my only option in my mind where my morality stems from. i understood my options. in my mind , i had plenty of options. i did not know that God had foreknew that i would have sex. as fas i knew, God foreknew that i would not have sex. a choice to have sex was made MORALLY within my mind. we make choices with our mind. we think that we have options available to us. i thought i had the option to refrain from sex. even though the reality was that i had no options,

 

[themuzicman]

OV speculates here. Everyone, including OVer's know we do not believe this.

The position you hold is logically inconsistent. And everyone, including OVers know this to be true.

Thank you. One down, two to go.

This is just a form of guilt by association. Just because Pinnock is wrong on something unrelated, you refuse to listen to anything he says?

The RC could have responded. Where would that have put all of us?

Thanks for conceding the point that you are no better off in this boat than I am, that the majority of the church and theologians disagree with you.

John Piper, Millard Erickson, J.I. Packer, and Bruce Ware, the list is huge.

And I thought you were going to post a list that was historical, not recent, and was Orthodox, not Protestant.

Quite disappointing.

In the proofs, there are accepted arguments for them, and I concur they are good ones. The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities 9) is this: A person is morally culpable only if he could have acted otherwise. -Philosophy Review

So I will be considering #9. We both note that in multiple proofs, where 3 is the norm specifically because of the problem of attacking any one position successfully topples the end proof, that 10 is ambitious.

If it were me, I'd have tried to find a 3-tier proof for exactly this reason (a ten tier proof tends to be 1) harder to prove 2) a logical quagmire 3) subject to much more scrutiny.

1) Yesterday, God infallibly knew that you would choose ice cream at 6pm tomorrow. (assumption)
2) Today, it is now-necessary that God knew yesterday that...
3) Thus, you will not freely choose ice cream at 6pm tomorrow.

That's the short version. The other steps are just to explain the principles involved in arriving there.

Never-the-less, I do not have much problems with many of the proofs laid out, I'm stating that 10 tier proofs are easier to topple. For me, I'll only address toppling the final proposition. If #9 does not stand, there is no #10 for proof. I am specifically addressing #9 because it is the LFW position of the OV and toppling it in any shape or form will adequately address the OV concern.

The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities again, is this: A person is morally culpable only if he could have acted otherwise. We are born to sin with no other possible choice. How is it that we are born to sin with no other possibility and under the wrath of God? The proof actually denies the truth of scripture: 1) all have sinned and fall short 2) the wages of sin is death. According to this principle, we could not be held morally culpable if we have no other choice.

Umm... All this verse states is that at some point we all sin. There is nothing in this verse that denies free will. If it said that "At every possible choice, every person must choose the worst possible sin", then it would be removal of free will. But, because it is a general statement about a kind of act that we all commit, it doesn't rise to that level.

I address this with several considerations: 1) we are culpable from others decisions. Examples: British criminals were deported to Australia. Children born in Australia were not criminals themselves, but were born under the judgement, not by their choice, but by their birth. They are under a culpable judgement, not by action, but by birth. Morally culpable does not necessitate a decision. The proof above seeks to prove culpability upon choice alone and it fails in this proof for man under the bondage of sin. This consideration alone questions veracity of the proof.

This is just silly. Whether someone is born under sin or not doesn't prescribe any particular action.

A proof, once questioned, must address and or be modified or it fails.

Done.

2) Acting otherwise. This proposition also does not include all considerations. It is a limitation upon the proof because it does not recognize instances of guilt-by-association, guilt by a failure not-to-act, guilt by ignorance, etc. In other words, the proof is too narrow to be true.

The proof does not address guilt at all. It addresses whether one can freely choose.

If one does not know walking on the grass or driving over a certain limit is an infraction, he had no choice to do otherwise. Ignorance removes his 'choice to do otherwise' but it does not remove the infraction. He is guilty, not by choice but by ignorance (he was not given a choice, perhaps the "Keep off the grass" sign was maliciously removed, or perhaps a tree was blocking the speed limit sign." If he is absolved from the crime, it still does not remove his guilt and culpability (he was still breaking the law). It is only grace (understanding by the court) that will allow him to walk free. He is guilty, not by choice to do otherwise, but by culpability of iinfraction.

LOL.. Where did you get the idea that this is about guilt or culpability? The proof demonstrates that free will is incompatible with EDF.

Free will does not mean unlimited ability. Just because I cannot flap my arms and fly to the moon doesn't mean I don't have the ability to choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream

#9 topples because it is not true.

Lon

LOL... I don't think you understand the proof.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

a favorite mantra of OV states that EDF rules out free will. it is true that you cant make any choice other than what God knows that you will do. this does not mean that you are a robot that only follows a predetermined program. all choices are made by you even though you can only choose what God knows you are going to do.
this is my definition of choosing: if your mind picks 1 option among many, you have made a choice. the fact that you could not have chosen otherwise, does not negate the fact that a choice was made by you. If God knows that i will eat steak tommorow, i will still choose to eat steak tommorow because in my mind, i had several options available. once i chose to eat steak, the fact that God knew i would do this does not mean i did not make the steak choice. God did not choose steak for me. i made that choice. God has EDF because God can time travel. all events that have taken place in the physical world are completed. the spirit world that God exists in, does not go by the clock.

But free will isn't validated by the illusion that you could have done otherwise.

Muz

 

[voltaire]

even though i had no options available other than to have sex, i believed that i had plenty of options available to me. i WAS morally culpable each time that i fornicated because i believed that i had the option not to. i believed that i had plenty of other things to do at that moment other than to fornicate. it was in my mind that i was morally culpable. God knows that i am not aware that my future is set. i am not aware that i will be kind to a stranger tommorow. God knows that i will be kind to a stranger tommorow. when i am kind tommorow, it will happen because it has already happened in Gods foreknowledge. in my mind tommorow, there will be many options available to me at that moment even though in reality i only have to option to be kind. i will believe that i am making a choice to be kind out of a myriad of other options and i will be morally praised for that action because i believed that i made a choice to be kind.

 

[voltaire]

free will is not validated by the illusion that i had a choice? i believe that i have free will. i believe that i am morally culpable for my actions. when i fornicated, i did so because i wanted to. i did so because i didnt care if it was a sin. i was full of lust. i wanted to fornicate and that is why i am morally culpable for fornicating.

 

[themuzicman]

free will is not validated by the illusion that i had a choice? i believe that i have free will. i believe that i am morally culpable for my actions. when i fornicated, i did so because i wanted to. i did so because i didnt care if it was a sin. i was full of lust. i wanted to fornicate and that is why i am morally culpable for fornicating.

So, if I build a robot that wants to go into a mall and plant a bomb, then the robot is morally culpable?

Muz

 

[godrulz]

This is more reasonable assessment on your part. You are good to correct the previous assertion with

Thank you for correcting your previous equivocations. It means a lot.

In Him

Lon

Fluke, accident, whatever I did. It was not a flash of brilliance

 

[godrulz]

a favorite mantra of OV states that EDF rules out free will. it is true that you cant make any choice other than what God knows that you will do. this does not mean that you are a robot that only follows a predetermined program. all choices are made by you even though you can only choose what God knows you are going to do.
this is my definition of choosing: if your mind picks 1 option among many, you have made a choice. the fact that you could not have chosen otherwise, does not negate the fact that a choice was made by you. If God knows that i will eat steak tommorow, i will still choose to eat steak tommorow because in my mind, i had several options available. once i chose to eat steak, the fact that God knew i would do this does not mean i did not make the steak choice. God did not choose steak for me. i made that choice. God has EDF because God can time travel. all events that have taken place in the physical world are completed. the spirit world that God exists in, does not go by the clock.

Whose side are you on? I thought you were OT? Time travel is sci-fi, not Scripture. The future is not a thing or place, but something does not exist. God is not timeless. Time is unidirectional. Future events do not exist in the present. The past, present, future is meaningful to God and the spirit world is parallel to the physical world.

 

[godrulz]

John Sanders lost a teaching post over his OT (Huntington University). Gregory Boyd co-existed with his Baptist General Conference denomination (which was not SBC), even though they disagreed with his details.

The ETS was a fiasco and was initially focused on inerancy issues. If I recall, Sanders and Pinnock were on the hot seat. This was like an evangelical taliban and demonstrated strident misunderstanding of OT.