Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism.

[Drew]

Hello NR (+rest of the gang):

Determinism - Choices are caused by another. This can be divided into two sub-categories: hard determinism and soft determinism. Hard determinism says that an individual has no free will at all. Soft determinism says that an individual’s free will is controlled by God's sovereignty. This seems to be the type of free will that you believe humans possess (I may be wrong).

Can further clarification be provided in respect to the distinction between "hard determinism" (HD) and "soft determinism (Soft-D)"? I am worried about a possible "overlap" between Soft-D and self-determinism (Self-D).

At any point in time. lets consider the set "S" of all actions that are physically possible for for an agent "A" (a human) to perform, given his/her circumstances at that time. Let's assume that A then performs action S(i). Now presumably, HD says that "God made A do S(i)". Now under Soft-D, A's action is still caused by another agent (by your words). How is this not really just HD?

Are you really saying that HD is the "puppet scenario" - God directly controls like a puppeteer would control a puppet, while under Soft-D, our choices are greatly constrained in order to mesh together with God's plan? However, they are not constrained down to one choice, or this would effectively become HD, wouldn't it? If, under Soft-D, our choices are not narrowed down to 1 choice, don't we then need to undertake a little bit of "good old Self-D" to make our final choice?

In short, how can our free will be "controlled by God's sovereignty" without eliminating it, and if it is not eliminated totally, doesn't "what remains" of our free will either have to be put in the "Indeterminism" or Self-D category?

 

[Dave...]

Hey everyone

If you click on the link provided in that post you will see the definition of libertarian free will as defined by them. I think that we are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. We can go over determinism and more, but for now, we need to establish few things here.

Do you believe that you can "come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit"?

Do you believe that "left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise"?


Peace

 

[Drew]

I do not have time to read the link right now. I hope to read it later and may revise what I say below. For the present, I will assume that "libertarian free will" can be loosely equated with "the capability to autonomously choose otherwise" in some situation.

Do you believe that you can "come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit"?

No. We need to have the Spirit draw us. The action of the Spririt is a necessary but not sufficient condition for coming to faith in Christ.

Do you believe that "left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise"?

No. I do not believe this.

 

[Not_Registered]

Can further clarification be provided in respect to the distinction between "hard determinism" (HD) and "soft determinism (Soft-D)"? I am worried about a possible "overlap" between Soft-D and self-determinism (Self-D).

And this is valid concern. Let me begin by saying the theological perspective of free will (including determinism, self-determinism, and indeterminism) differs from their philosophical parallels. The web has several pages dealing with the philosophical definition of free will, and some use the terms determinism, self-determinism, and indeterminism (see here). But these pages often equate self-determinism with indeterminism and even self-determinism with soft determinism (see here). In the theological perspectives, significant differences arise in regards to our sinful nature and the salvation. These are issues that the philosophical perspective are not concerned with at all; and this is why they tend to differ with the theological parallels.

I say that to say that yes the various theological perspectives do overlap in certain areas. (The rest of this post deals with the theological perspectives and not the philosophical parallels.) So, for instance, in every-day, nontrivial choices of man, most of the free will views agree (in theory). As I said before, where differences arise is in regards to our sinful nature and in regards to salvation.

At any point in time. lets consider the set "S" of all actions that are physically possible for for an agent "A" (a human) to perform, given his/her circumstances at that time. Let's assume that A then performs action S(i). Now presumably, HD says that "God made A do S(i)". Now under Soft-D, A's action is still caused by another agent (by your words). How is this not really just HD?

Good question. In theory hard determinism and soft determinism differ. But, in practice, they equate to the same things, which is why they are both classified under the main category of determinism.

To illustrate, we can say that hard determinists believe God carries man through life (i.e., God causes all things). Soft determinists, on the other hand, believe God pushes man through life (i.e., God controls all things). They both boil down to the same thing: God is the cause. Self-determinists believes God persuades man in life. This amounts to God being able to influence, but man being the final cause of his choices. Indeterminists believe that everything is arbitrary. I'll briefly comment on indeterminism. I think this view to be absurd in and of itself. If there is no cause or reason for our choices then we would not be able to reasonably choose between drinking rat poison or water. If an indeterminist were asked if a man would choose to drink rat poison or water he would have to say, "I don't know. We'll have to see what he decides." This is absurd. Clearly no one desires to drink rat poison, but the indeterminists can't admit this; because, according to their view, our choices are uncaused.

Are you really saying that HD is the "puppet scenario" - God directly controls like a puppeteer would control a puppet, while under Soft-D, our choices are greatly constrained in order to mesh together with God's plan? However, they are not constrained down to one choice, or this would effectively become HD, wouldn't it? If, under Soft-D, our choices are not narrowed down to 1 choice, don't we then need to undertake a little bit of "good old Self-D" to make our final choice?

Good point. Yes, in practice, soft determinism boils down to hard determinism (which is why they are both deterministic).

The difference is sort of like agnosticism and atheism (when I say agnosticism I am referring to the traditional definition that one doesn't believe in a god but is uncertain if we can ever know for sure). In theory they differ, but in practice they are equivalent. Agnostics are without theism, so they are a-theists, because they don't believe in God. The differences are talked about in more detail in some atheist books, such as George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. In short, the differences are primarily superficial, because they both amount to the same thing in practice. The same can be said for hard and soft determinism.

In short, how can our free will be "controlled by God's sovereignty" without eliminating it, and if it is not eliminated totally, doesn't "what remains" of our free will either have to be put in the "Indeterminism" or Self-D category?

This is true, which is why there are three main categories: Determinism, self-determinism, and indeterminism. Some have chosen to subdivide determinism into soft and hard determinism, but they still basically boil down to the same thing.

So, where do the differences in the three views arise? Well, in terms of our sinful nature, determinism and self-determinism agree. They hold that we are bound by sin in our sinful nature, and it does affect us. Indeterminism holds that we are unaffected by our sinful nature because it doesn't affect us or qualify as a cause or even an influence for any of our decisions. This is obviously completely unbiblical, so we can, even at this point, disqualify indeterminism as a plausible view of free will. Also, by indeterminism we can't be held as responsible for our actions because we didn't cause them; they were uncaused (this point was raised in the article Dan provided).

Now let's look at the three views and how they view salvation. By indeterminism, there are two reasons why God's grace isn't necessary for salvation: (1) we can't be held responsible for our sin and (2) we have the ability to please God in our fallen state, because we are not bound by our sinful nature. Determinism (both hard and soft) views one's receiving of salvation as being dependent only on God. This view is labeled as monergism. (Note that monergism.com is the website at which the article Dan provided is posted.) The alternate view, which is what self-determinists hold, is synergism. Synergism holds that salvation is a cooperative act between God and man. (Note that self-determinism doesn't view God's grace to be dependent on man, but that salvation, while dependent on God, is also, not solely, dependent on man.)

So, the issue of salvation becomes the main issue, at least between determinism and self-determinism (and in a theological perspective). Also, I would like to note that the deterministic view of monergism is often referred to as Irresistible Grace, which the self-determinist (or synergist) doesn't agree with.

 

[Not_Registered]

Do you believe that you can "come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit"?

Drew perfectly articulated my answer to this. He said:

• No. We need to have the Spirit draw us. The action of the [Spirit] is a necessary but not sufficient condition for coming to faith in Christ.

I completely agree.

Do you believe that "left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise"?

I was ambiguous about this before; but, after reading some more biblical passages, I believe I agree with the above statement. However, the key to my acceptance of the above statement is that it says that while "left to himself" man cannot do any "redemptive" good. I do believe, though, that man can do good in his sinful nature, just not any amount of good to earn him salvation, that is, he cannot do any redemptive good. So, yes, I would agree with the above statement.

 

[Dave...]

Drew wrote:

No. We need to have the Spirit draw us. The action of the Spririt is a necessary but not sufficient condition for coming to faith in Christ.

I think I know what you are saying, but I would like to make sure. You are saying that the Holy Spirit is necessary, but you are also saying that the Holy Spirit alone cannot acomplish bringing someone to faith by Himself, that there are other factors? Is that correct? if so, what are the other factors?

Dave... wrote:
Do you believe that "left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise"?

Drew wrote:
No. I do not believe this.

So you believe that man can overcome his sinful nature in some things, but not all things. Is this correct?

But God judges the sinful man by the motives of His heart also. So even if a person in there sinful state did something good, the motives of his heart were corrupt. If a man in his sinful nature cures aids, it is in fact a good think that God should be glorified for, but in his sinful state, no matter how deep one must go, there will always be a corrupt motive i.e. self glorification, money, pride etc.

Darkened minds and corrupt hearts.

Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Ecclesiastes 9:3, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23, John 3:19, Romans 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 4:17-19, Ephesians 5:8, Titus 1:15.

Enslaved to do the will of Satan.

Bondage to sin and Satan

John 8:44, Ephesians 2:1-2, 2 Timothy 2:25-26, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 5:19, John 8:34, Romans 6:20, Titus 3:3.

Jesus said that apart from Him, we can do nothing (nothing good) John 15:5.

Do you still disagree?

Dave

 

[Drew]

Do you still disagree?Dave

Perhaps I misunderstood the initial question. I will say the following:

"Left to himself", man cannot do any good that suffices for his redemption, given that he has sinned in the past. But I guess I do think it is possible for a man to live a sinless life even in the presence of a sinful nature. If it were not so, there would seem to be no legitimate grounds for punishment. This is the recurrent question as to whether one can be justly punished for not meeting a truly unachievable standard. But once we have indeed sinned, we now need help - we cannot do enough good to repair the damage. Is this more clear? Perhaps I do agree with your second statement.

About my answer to the 1st question, I will say that the other factor is "human free will" - I think that I fall into the "self-determinist" camp according to Not_Registered categories.

 

[Not_Registered]

Dave, I will now comment on your previous comments and on the first point of the article.

Faith and repentance are divine gifts and are the result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

This is a monergistic viewpoint. I do believe that faith, repentance, and salvation are the results of the Holy Spirit, but I think, as Drew put it, the Holy Spirit is not a sufficient cause of these things. By this I mean, the Holy Spirit alone doesn't cause faith or repentance. I believe the Holy Spirit enables one to do these things, but that the individual ultimately causes them to occur.

In addition to the general outward call, the Holy Spirit extends a special inward call to the elect. The general call can be and often is rejected, the special call always results in the conversion of those of whom it was made.

This is what Calvinists call Irresistible Grace. I do not accept this belief, because it makes God out to be unfair and views Him as having favorites. Why would God toy with some and send them a "general" call and arbitrarily send an "inward" call to a randomly selected elect? I believe the synergism view is supported by the bible, as opposed to Irresistible Grace. I have several biblical passages to back what I am saying but I would prefer to get into discussing the article first. When these issues are raised during the article we can make cases for our view, but I'd rather refrain from doing that now otherwise we will never get to discuss the article. (However, if someone would rather discuss the various views now, instead of the article, that is fine with me also.

Note: John Hendryx is the author of the article. He holds a compatibilist viewpoint of free will (which is equivalent to that of a soft determinist, although Hendryx seems to equivocate his stance). Walls and Dongell hold a "libertarian" interpretation; but, more specifically, they have an indeterminist viewpoint of free will.

You have posted the first point made in the article, so I will not re-post it in its entirety. The main issue discussed in the first point is as follows: (1) According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. As with the article, I believe this interpretation of the libertarian view (from this point on refer to Walls' and Dongell's view as indeterminism for reasons mentioned in earlier posts) to be inconsistent with scriptures and to be unacceptable due to the implications, namely, that this would make it possible for man (in his fallen state and independent of God) to seek God. As we can see, the implications are not aligned with the teachings of the bible. So, I agree with Hendryx (the author of the article), that this is one reason to reject indeterminism.

I object (it might be a trivial objection based on your viewpoint) to Hendryx's statement that "[man] can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature." Man, while in a fallen state, is fated to, or will inevitably sin, but he doesn't have to always, or only, do wrong.

A main point raised by Hendryx is that of "prevenient grace." About prevenient grace, Hendryx says:

• But, having deduced that libertarian free will must still be true, libertarians believe they resolve this problem by inventing a logical scheme (nowhere found in the gospels) where God grants something to all who hear the gospel called prevenient grace, which temporarily removes the sin nature by allegedly placing sinners in a pre-fall-like state where they have libertarian freedom to either chose or reject Christ, a choice undetermined by any desires or nature. Because the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the libertarian, is never sufficient in itself. To grace we must add choice.

I would agree, contra Hendryx, that God's grace is not a sufficient cause of salvation, and that it must be met with choice in order to be fulfilled. Hendryx raises the point that prevenient grace is not found in the gospels. This is true, but we should not dismiss this concept based solely on the fact that the term doesn't appear in the gospels. If we did that we would have to also dismiss the concept of compatibilism, because that isn't found anywhere in the gospels as well. We could say the same for "free will" in general, because the bible doesn't discuss it as we do. These things are merely terminology we create to help convey a certain concept. We can read the bible and draw certain conclusions from it. For example, I don't know that the bible ever mentions God being omnipotent or omniscient, but these are just terms we have given to label concepts depicted in or derived from the bible.

Now, Hendryx goes on to cite a bible passage which I think does more harm for his argument against "prevenient grace" than it does good. Hendryx says:

• For a biblical example that pronounces the differences among us, consider when Paul was preaching the gospel to Lydia and "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14). A libertarian would argue this passage placed Lydia in a pre-fall-like state where she had libertarian freedom to believe or reject Jesus. But the passage plainly says that God opened her heart to respond, not so that she would hopefully respond.

Now Hendryx's interpretation of this passage seems viciously ad hoc and commits two errors. First, Hendryx concludes an ad hoc interpretation. In language there are some inferred words that are often left out of sentences. For example, if I say, "I will give you this book to read" that sentence really reads, "I will give you this book [so that you might] read [it]" or "I will give you this book to [be able to] read [it]." But, Hendryx would suggest that the sentence reads, "I will give you this book [so you must] read [it]," which seems to be a blatantly ad hoc and contrived interpretation. This is the first error Hendryx makes. The second error Hendryx makes is in assuming to much. Even if we allow this ad hoc connotation, Hendryx's implied conclusion, that Lydia was coerced to accepting the gospel, doesn't follow. So, even if we say that Lydia must respond (instead of is able to respond) what follows is that Lydia responds to the gospel, not that Lydia accepts the gospel. The verse clearly says that Lydia could respond due to God opening her heart, but it doesn't say whether she must respond in a positive manner, which is what Hendryx implies.

Then, Hendryx goes on to say, "There is not one instance in Scripture when such language is used (where God acts) when people actually refused (see 2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37,65)." Now this is just flat out incorrect. Many times the Scriptures indicate people rejecting God:

• Matthew 23:37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you were not willing![/*:m:82dfe]
• Luke 7:30 - But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.[/*:m:82dfe]
• John 5:40 - But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.[/*:m:82dfe]
• Acts 7:51 - You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.[/*:m:82dfe]
• 2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.[/*:m:82dfe]

Hendryx comments on Paul being called to God and asks, "Can such a call be thwarted?" as if to imply that it cannot, which would support the concept of Irresistible Grace. Hendryx goes on to say, "But if God gives an inner call no one resists (Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; Rom 8:30) nor does he want to." So it now seems clear that Hendryx is a soft determinist who accepts monergism and not synergism (which is in align with self-determinism). But earlier in his article, Hendryx says ". . . a self-determining will (to chose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism." This claims self-determinism, whereas latter he writes against this (as shown above). He even equivocates his view of free will within his first point. We saw that he supports Irresistible Grace in his first point, but later on in that same point he says, "We either desire Christ or we despise him, and if we choose Him, this is the result of sovereign grace . . ." But according to Irresistible Grace and monergism, we do not choose Him, He chooses us, we are merely affected by His choice. So, this seems to be another equivocation by Hendryx. You cannot support monergism and say that we choose God, because we play no part in the role of salvation according to monergism.

Although I had a few objections with things Hendryx said in his first point, I agreed with the issue the first point raised. I am, however, unclear on his position of free will because he seems, at times, to be meshing soft determinism with self-determinism and monergism (or Irresistible Grace) with synergism.

Sidenote: I really did not mean for the post to get this long. I have had several lengthy posts, so I will try to keep them shorter from now on.

 

[Dave...]

Drew said:

If it were not so, there would seem to be no legitimate grounds for punishment. This is the recurrent question as to whether one can be justly punished for not meeting a truly unachievable standard.

I want to deal with this first, since it keeps coming up.

Even in His sovereignty, God does not "double predestinate". "God does not elect the uregenerate to damnation. He passes them by, leaving them in their unregenerate state, and thus allows them to suffer the destiny that they earned..." We do not all start at a state of neutrality."...If there is any hint of injustice in the divine elective discrimination (and we do not believe that there is), it falls not upon God's treatment of the reprobate but upon the elect. The redeemed man does not receive the divine wrath that is due to him as a sinner. Instead, he receives the gift of grace as the merits of Christ are reckoned to his account...."

But I guess I do think it is possible for a man to live a sinless life even in the presence of a sinful nature.

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Titus 1:15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin.

"A bad tree cannot bear good fruit" etc. There is a lot more, but I don't want to drown this post in scripture to make one point.

About my answer to the 1st question, I will say that the other factor is "human free will" - I think that I fall into the "self-determinist" camp according to Not_Registered categories.

In the compatibilist sense, mans will is the vehicle used to reach a fixed end that is determined by God. But in no way does mans will determine the outcome.

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

2 Timothy 1:Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Again, there is more, but i'll try to keep it short.

Drew, i've shown you a few examples from the Bible of compatibilism from the unregenerate side, but there are examples from the regenerate side also.

You probably acknowledge compatibilism without even realizing it. God's word tells us not to worry about tomorrow, that even the birds do not worry about what they will eat tomorrow. I think it was Solomon or Job who said that he has never seen a righteous persons children (made righteous in faith) begging bread. Now, before you eat dinner you give thanks to our Lord for it, right? Should we sit at the table waiting for dinner to miraculously appear because God made a promise to us? No, We go out and do what we need to do to put dinner on the table, but we still thank God for it. Even though He allows us to be part of His sovereign plan, He is the cause for it.

Here is an example of compatibilism with the regenerate as an example that is recorded in scripture. The Bible tells us that we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling Philippians 2:13-13, but does this make it any less through, by and from God?

Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
13 For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Jude shows the same...

Jude 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction;
23 But others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.

Not registered, i'm not ignoring you, i'm just taking this one post at a time and you're next. I'll try to answer your post tonight if possible. If not tommorow.

 

[Dave...]

N.R.

I going to skip some questions that you asked in your post that I feel have been answered in my post to Drew.

but I think, as Drew put it, the Holy Spirit is not a sufficient cause of these things. By this I mean, the Holy Spirit alone doesn't cause faith or repentance. I believe the Holy Spirit enables one to do these things, but that the individual ultimately causes them to occur.

The nature of that person determines the cause in general. In this case, we are speaking of a pre salvation action, which is contrary to the nature of that person thus requiring the Holy Spirit as it's cause.

Why would God toy with some and send them a "general" call and arbitrarily send an "inward" call to a randomly selected elect?

Maybe it's an example to us who are commanded to preach the gospel to all. We cannot know who the elect are and it's not our job to disinguish who is and who isn't. See Romans 9:10-24 and notice the word"longsuffering" in vs 22, or it may be translated "patience". But anyways, your answer is there. Basically, He's saying that 'who are you to question Him?' Remember that's what got Job into trouble.

I object (it might be a trivial objection based on your viewpoint) to Hendryx's statement that "[man] can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature." Man, while in a fallen state, is fated to, or will inevitably sin, but he doesn't have to always, or only, do wrong.

But again, look at the scripture that i've been posting. It is impossible for an unregenerate man to do anything good apart from God. For one, anything good that comes from a saved person is actually an undeserved gift from God. This is why we give God all the glory, because it's all from Him. Separate man from God, and there is no longer a source that is capable of doing/creating good works. Two, even if the works look to have good results, man in His sinful fallen nature cannot Separate himself from evil intentions like greed, gluttony, self glorification etc apart from God. Therefore our works apart from God will always be filthy rags Isaiah 64:6. This is also why Jesus said that apart from Him, we can do nothing John 15:5. The good always comes from God.

I would agree, contra Hendryx, that God's grace is not a sufficient cause of salvation, and that it must be met with choice in order to be fulfilled.

The choice falls under grace also.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Your faith is a gift from God. And so nobody would misunderstand, Paul tells us that "and that not of yourselves" "it is a gift from God".

9 Not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

The good works were even prepared beforehand.

Hendryx raises the point that prevenient grace is not found in the gospels. This is true, but we should not dismiss this concept based solely on the fact that the term doesn't appear in the gospels. If we did that we would have to also dismiss the concept of compatibilism, because that isn't found anywhere in the gospels as well. We could say the same for "free will" in general, because the bible doesn't discuss it as we do. These things are merely terminology we create to help convey a certain concept. We can read the bible and draw certain conclusions from it. For example, I don't know that the bible ever mentions God being omnipotent or omniscient, but these are just terms we have given to label concepts depicted in or derived from the bible.

I don't believe that he was speaking of terminology, but of Biblical evidence to support what the terminology teaches/means. There is evidence of compatibilism in scripture. The Bible may or may not use the actual terms "omnipotent" or "omniscient" but is does teach that God is both of those.

Now Hendryx's interpretation of this passage seems viciously ad hoc and commits two errors.

I believe that his interpretation is accurate. I'm not sure what ad hoc means. It would be pointless to argue against this since there is a ton of scripture that would teach the same thing. Maybe his interpretation is based on the Greek, or maybe he has also considered defining this passage in light of the rest of scripture which would back it up. Adding so she might respond would seem to be more of a stretch that actually taking it as it reads.

I'm going to post this before I lose it.

 

[Dave...]

"There is not one instance in Scripture when such language is used (where God acts) when people actually refused (see 2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37,65)." Now this is just flat out incorrect. Many times the Scriptures indicate people rejecting God:

He's talking about the inward call.

Matthew 23:37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you were not willing!

This is a general call, and also shows the compassion of Jesus. We know that all that the Father gave Jesus (Sheep) heard the inward calland came to Him ( true faith), and that Jesus would not lose one of them. John 6:35-40, John 10:11, John 10:14-18, John 10:24-29, John 17:1-11, John 17:20, John 17:24-26.

Luke 7:30 - But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

Again, speaking of the general call. If God had moved in their lives they would be saved. See the scripture in John quoted above.

John 5:40 - But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Why were they not willing? Again, see the scripture above "John".

Acts 7:51 - You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

The general call will be resisted by the non elect. The Holy Spirit can be resisted for a time by the elect, but those (elect) called inwardly (special call) will always come to faith eventually.

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

"Us" the saved/elect. All who receive the internal call will eventually respond, as explained above.

2 Peter 2:9 Then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,

"We either desire Christ or we despise him, and if we choose Him, this is the result of sovereign grace . . ." But according to Irresistible Grace and monergism, we do not choose Him, He chooses us, we are merely affected by His choice.

I don't see a problem here as you do.

You cannot support monergism and say that we choose God, because we play no part in the role of salvation according to monergism.

We do play a role, but we are not the cause. See my examples of compatibilism in my previous post to Drew.

I'm beat. I'll explain more tomorrow if need be.

In Christ

Dave

 

[Not_Registered]

Even in His sovereignty, God does not "double predestinate". "God does not elect the uregenerate to damnation. He passes them by, leaving them in their unregenerate state, and thus allows them to suffer the destiny that they earned..."

You'd have to take up your claim, that God doesn't "double predestinate", with some of your fellow monergists (see here, here, and here, and the list goes on), because many of them would disagree. Also, by not electing the unregenrate to salvation God does elect them to damnation, for under your view no one can receive salvation unless He is "elected."

Let's say, for example, that I am the captain of a team. There are a group of 10 people who I get to choose from. Now, no one may be on my team unless I choose them. I choose 4 of these 10, therefore, the other 6 I have chosen, even if indirectly, to not be on my team. So, if you opt for unconditional election, then you cannot escape double predestination, even if it is indirect.

Even if we disregard double predestination, does your other proposal (that "God does not elect the [unregenerate] to damnation" but "[h]e passes them by, leaving them in their unregenerate state") sound like that of a ALL-loving God? And, asserting, every time there is a serious issue in your perception of freewill, that we must concede our ignorance and accept it blindly won't do. This leads to the advocating of incorrect doctrine, which can lead to a perceived religion no different than that of Muslin extremists. For they too blindly accept, based on erroneous doctrine, that Allah condones killing all non-Muslims. I'm in no way equating what you are saying to their doctrine, but I'm merely pointing out that blind adherence to every controversial issue isn't acceptable.

In the compatibilist sense, mans will is the vehicle used to reach a fixed end that is determined by God. But in no way does mans will determine the outcome.

This is self-contradictory. You make two statements here: (1) man's will is used to reach an outcome and (2) mans will doesn't determine the outcome. Those two statements aren't reconcilable.

Now, before you eat dinner you give thanks to our Lord for it, right? Should we sit at the table waiting for dinner to miraculously appear because God made a promise to us? No, We go out and do what we need to do to put dinner on the table, but we still thank God for it. Even though He allows us to be part of His sovereign plan, He is the cause for it.

Even unbelievers eat dinner.

The nature of that person determines the cause in general. In this case, we are speaking of a pre salvation action, which is contrary to the nature of that person thus requiring the Holy Spirit as it's cause.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. This was in response to my comment:

• . . . but I think, as Drew put it, the Holy Spirit is not a sufficient cause of these things. By this I mean, the Holy Spirit alone doesn't cause faith or repentance. I believe the Holy Spirit enables one to do these things, but that the individual ultimately causes them to occur.

Now I clearly say that the Holy Spirit enables us to have faith and repent, for without being drawn by the Spirit no one would ever come to God. I freely admit this. What I am saying is that this is not a sufficient cause, that is, the Holy Spirit drawing us doesn't guarantee that we will have faith or repent. The Holy Spirit must be present for us to have faith, but this alone doesn't guarantee faith. It's like making a shot in basketball. One must shot the ball to make a shot, but this alone doesn't guarantee that the shot will be made. The shot must also be accurate. So, one cannot make a shot unless one shoots, but merely shooting the ball doesn't guarantee a made shot. Similarly, one cannot come to God unless he is drawn by the Spirit, but this alone doesn't guarantee faith (or repentance). This is what I am saying. I am not at all saying we can come to God independent of the Holy Spirit, because that isn't biblical at all.

Maybe it's an example to us who are commanded to preach the gospel to all. We cannot know who the elect are and it's not our job to disinguish who is and who isn't. See Romans 9:10-24 and notice the word"longsuffering" in vs 22, or it may be translated "patience". But anyways, your answer is there. Basically, He's saying that 'who are you to question Him?' Remember that's what got Job into trouble.

Job also wasn't being unfairly damned to hell. The above reply was in response to my comment:

• Why would God toy with some and send them a "general" call and arbitrarily send an "inward" call to a randomly selected elect?

You have yet to give an adequate answer for this, and merely saying "who are [we] to question Him" won't suffice, because it doesn't explain your position. The bible isn't explicit about this issue (monergism vs. synergism), which is why there is much debate about it, but the bible does provide enough for a probable conclusion to be drawn. However, you cannot assert your position and then claim it authoritative based on the notion that we can't question God. This does nothing to explain why your position is accurate. Giving one or two bible verses that lean toward your position and ten others that are ambiguous won't help either. Because my view, which is synergism, has more direct support in the bible than your view; and also complies with real world experience. So in defending my position I could too simply say "who are you to question Him." But this kind of defense won't get anyone anywhere and will get everyone nowhere.

Now, above I say that Job wasn't being unfairly damned to hell. Here, I imply that given your view certain individuals will be unfairly damned to hell. I emphasized the term "unfairly" because I want to distinguish it from "unjustly." Now, if God is just, all of us deserve hell. (Thanks be to God that He is not only just, but merciful, in that He has given us a way to be with Him.) In your monergistic view, God is just, because the people that are damned to hell deserve it; but God is not fair. God is not fair, because He offers guaranteed salvation (this "inward" call you speak of) to some, but not to others. While the results, that some will be saved and others not, are just, the act of unconditional (and limited) election is clearly not fair. As a defense, one cannot turn to the bible and say, "But see, God is fair." This would be like someone, say Steve, committing a crime, referencing his mom who says he is innocent, and then saying, "But see, I am innocent." Either the source (in this case the parent) is incorrect or the claim (in this case that Steve is guilty) is incorrect. Both cannot be accepted.

It is no different in the case of the bible and of God. Now I will admit there are things we cannot comprehend (e.g., the Trinity, the Mind of God, the nature of God's existence, etc.) but these do not apply. We can, however, comprehend fairness. The bible says God is fair. So if someone asserts (directly or indirectly) that God is unfair, because we know the source (i.e., the bible) to be true, we must reject the assertion, not blindly accept the assertion and the bible to be true (which would be accepting a contradiction). Now, based on this alone, we should reject the concept of unconditional election, because it makes God out to be unfair. But, even if we search the bible for any scriptural basis to accept this concept we will find none, and we will find plenty reason to reject it.

The choice falls under grace also.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Your faith is a gift from God. And so nobody would misunderstand, Paul tells us that "and that not of yourselves" "it is a gift from God"

Whoa. I know of no bible commentary that depicts Ephesians 2:8 as saying faith in this passage is the gift from God. What then is grace and salvation in this passage? It is clear from a cursory reading, and from a more detailed analysis, that grace, and therefore salvation, is that which is a "gift from God." Faith is that through which salvation is received. Norman L. Geisler said it best in his Systematic Theology: Volume Three: Sin, Salvation when he noted that grace, and thus salvation, is a gift provided for all; but it is only applied to those who have faith, that is, those who accept the gift.

I can again bring up the "rich man" analogy. The money offered by a rich man is a gift, but that gift alone (that is, if it is not accepted) does nothing. But, those who believe the rich man and accept his gift become enriched. Not of their own accord, but because of the rich man's money. So, neither can these "believers" boasts about their efforts, because nothing they did enriched them, but it was the gift of the rich man. They are not enriched by the money and through the money; because the money itself doesn't generate their receiving of it. They are enriched by the money and through their acceptance of it. This is how the bible depicts the relationship between God's gifts of grace and salvation and our faith. It is by God's grace that we come to acknowledge Him, but it is through faith that we receive His gift of salvation. The bible makes this clear:

• Acts 13:39 - [A]nd by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.[/*:m:f8df9]
• Acts 16:31 - So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."[/*:m:f8df9]
• Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness[/*:m:f8df9]
• Romans 3:22 - [E]ven the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. . . .[/*:m:f8df9]
• Romans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ[/*:m:f8df9]
• Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.[/*:m:f8df9]

I believe that his interpretation is accurate. I'm not sure what ad hoc means. It would be pointless to argue against this since there is a ton of scripture that would teach the same thing.

First, ad hoc generally means "forced." An ad hoc interpretation would be one where the conclusion was forced only to be aligned with the presupposed belief of the interpreter. Second, there is not a "ton of scripture" that indicates what Hendryx wants us to believe, namely, that God's grace forces someone to have faith. Hendryx's interpretation of the mentioned verse is both ad hoc and a non sequitur (that is, it doesn't follow), as I showed in an earlier post.

Sidenote: Sorry, I really tried to make this post short. I give up.

 

[Drew]

Even in His sovereignty, God does not "double predestinate". "God does not elect the uregenerate to damnation. He passes them by, leaving them in their unregenerate state, and thus allows them to suffer the destiny that they earned..." We do not all start at a state of neutrality."...If there is any hint of injustice in the divine elective discrimination (and we do not believe that there is), it falls not upon God's treatment of the reprobate but upon the elect. The redeemed man does not receive the divine wrath that is due to him as a sinner. Instead, he receives the gift of grace as the merits of Christ are reckoned to his account...."

I am a little confused....

My understanding, Dave, is that you do not believe that man has "free will" in respect to courses of action that are possible for him. Let's say that a man is tempted to cheat on his wife. The "other woman" is available and willing. I think that the man has the "free" choice to cheat with her or not. I am also open to the possibility that indeed the man cannot resist the temptation without help from God. However, and this is a huge "however", the man has the ability to understand that he needs God's help and can make the free will decision to accept God's power to help him resist temptation. Either way, man is exercizing some free will in the whole process.

Do you maintain that it is God that determines whether the man goes ahead and cheats with the other woman, with the man contributing precisely nothing to the whole chain of events?

I also understand that you believe that conferral of salvation is an act of God, and in particular a fully sufficient act - man contributes absolutely zero to attaining his salvation. I further understand that you believe that we are "born sinners" and that (in combination with your view about free will) therefore a person enters the world absolutely "hard-wired" (pre-destined, fated, etc.) to commit sin.

If I have represented your views fairly, how can it reasonably be said that the "non-elect" have earned their fate? The whole notion of "earning" punishment seems to necessarily require the freedom for the agent to "choose otherwise", either at the point of committing the act, or at some prior point when the agent recognizes his "fallen state" and the insufficiency of his own strength and then freely accept God's help.

I also do not feel very comfortable with the seeming arbitrariness associated with God's determination of who will be among the elect and who will not.

 

[Not_Registered]

He's talking about the inward call.

This was in response to my comment that Hendryx was wrong in saying that God's grace is never refused in the Scriptures. In commenting, I said:

• Now this is just flat out incorrect. Many times the Scriptures indicate people rejecting God . . .

I went on to list several verses that proved my point. Now, of course one can groundlessly assert that these verses only concern the "general" call, but these verses have absolutely no indication that that is the case. Without any basis or reasons for it, that assertion becomes completely unfounded and blatantly ad hoc.

This is a general call . . .

This was in response to the following scripture passage:

• Matthew 23:37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you were not willing!

Where in this verse does it say or even slightly imply that this is a "general" call as opposed to an "inward" call? Defending your position by defining "inward" calls as all those that accept God's gift of salvation renders your argument as circular. Your argument could then be formulated as such:

1. The distinction between general and inward calls exists if all who receive inward calls accept God's gift of salvation.[/*:m:a8cba]
2. Inward calls are defined as calls to all who accept God's gift of salvation.[/*:m:a8cba]
3. Therefore, the distinction between general and inward calls exists.[/*:m:a8cba]

This argument is viscously circular and, therefore, is of no use. It basically says inward calls are the calls to all those who accept God's gift of salvation because inward calls are the calls to all those who accept God's gift of salvation. This is what some would designate as a non-falsifiable position. If something cannot be proved false (that is, it is not falsifiable) then it is of no use. It would be like me defining something I call a "spacer" as an immaterial, invisible, object that exists but can't be detected. Well, no one can prove my assertion wrong, so it becomes useless.

Also, you are clearly designating the type of call after the fact and only based on your presupposition that inward calls must be accepted. There are no other criteria in your analysis. This would be equivalent to me saying there are "false" shots and "true" shots in basketball, and designating "true" shots as ones that are made. Someone might ask me, after a shot is taken whether it is "true" or not. I would wait to see the outcome, and then, knowing that the shot was made, I would say it was a "true" shot. Given this kind of after-the-fact, ad hoc analysis, my invented concepts of "true" and "false" shots are rendered meaningless. It isn't as if a particular shot can be said to be "true" or "false", but it has become just another way of saying the shot was made or missed. The concepts of "true" and "false" shots aren't actual; they're meaningless.

But this is what you are doing. You are designating the type of call after-the-fact, so as to never be wrong. You say that the above passage is a general call, and you must given your position. However, there is absolutely nothing within that passage which hints or suggests that the call from God is a general call, as opposed to an inward one. Also, there is nothing in that verse that makes a distinction between the two types of calls. This is not just true for that verse, but for every verse that I offered in one of my previous posts. This renders your concepts of "general" versus "inward" calls as meaningless. They can only be used as another way to distinguish between those that accept God's salvation and those that don't. They cannot be said to be actual, that is, it would be incorrect to think of God as actually sending some "general" calls and, at times, actually sending "inward" calls. We should abandon these terms, or, if we don't, they can only be used to designate believers as opposed to non-believers. And, they cannot be depicted as an actual call that God makes, where one call is stronger than the other. But, to avoid confusion, just like my "true" and "false" shot terminology, the "general" and "inward" call terminology should be abandoned, unless other criteria can be given for distinguishing between the two that isn't after-the-fact and ad hoc.

Again, speaking of the general call. If God had moved in their lives they would be saved. See the scripture in John quoted above.

None of the John passages you provided supported your view. In fact, at least one supports my view:

• John 6:35-40 - And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

The rest of the responses you gave to the passages I provided (that supported my view) were either completely ad hoc interpretations of those passage or unfounded assertions.

We do play a role, but we are not the cause.

I'm having a hard time understand what role we play if it isn't causal. Could you please expound on this "role."

Do you maintain that it is God that determines . . . with the man contributing precisely nothing to the whole chain of events?

I also understand that you believe that conferral of salvation is an act of God, and in particular a fully sufficient act - man contributes absolutely zero to attaining his salvation. I further understand that you believe that we are "born sinners" and that (in combination with your view about free will) therefore a person enters the world absolutely "hard-wired" (pre-destined, fated, etc.) to commit sin.

If I have represented your views fairly, how can it reasonably be said that the "non-elect" have earned their fate? The whole notion of "earning" punishment seems to necessarily require the freedom for the agent to "choose otherwise", either at the point of committing the act, or at some prior point when the agent recognizes his "fallen state" and the insufficiency of his own strength and then freely accept God's help.

Here, Drew gives possibly the strongest rebuttal against a deterministic approach to free will that I have ever seen. I have never seen this approach before, but it is very powerful and raises a seemingly inescapable dilemma for the determinist.

 

[Dave...]

NR wrote:

Also, by not electing the unregenrate to salvation God does elect them to damnation, for under your view no one can receive salvation unless He is "elected."

I disagree. You are assuming a neutral starting point for all.

I'll save the infralapsarianism vs. supralapsarianism for another thread. Interesting though, that it was Theodore Beza (Calvins son in law) who popularized supralapsarianism/double predestination because he was willing to go beyond where even Calvin would go. Calvin was content to leave questions as questions if he felt that the text was ambiguous. But it was Beza who wanted to take Calvins work, systematically fit it into a philosophy. Sound familiar? From that you have Arminius, who was a student of Beza who did not agree with either infralapsarianism or supralapsarianism because they didn't fit his philosophy of libertarian free will. Most reformed people, then and now were/are infralapsarianists. Most accuse infralapsarianists, then and now of being supralapsarianists.

NR wrote:

sound like that of a ALL-loving God?

Again, unless you believe that we have libertarian free will, the "would a loving God do this?" question fails your views also. Personally, I think that the questions does not take into consideration that God demands justice and is in no way obligated to save any of us. And also keep in mind Isaiah 55:8.

Dave wrote:
In the compatibilist sense, mans will is the vehicle used to reach a fixed end that is determined by God. But in no way does mans will determine the outcome.

NR wrote:
This is self-contradictory. You make two statements here: (1) man's will is used to reach an outcome and (2) mans will doesn't determine the outcome. Those two statements aren't reconcilable.

It makes sense to me.

NR wrote:

Even unbelievers eat dinner.

You missed the point. By any worldly observation, you did all the things necessary to put food on the table, yet you thank God for it. Why?

i'm going to post this before I lose it.

 

[Dave...]

NR wrote:

What I am saying is that this is not a sufficient cause, that is, the Holy Spirit drawing us doesn't guarantee that we will have faith or repent. The Holy Spirit must be present for us to have faith, but this alone doesn't guarantee faith.

The Spirit gives faith and repentance

Faith and repentance are divine gifts and are the result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:31, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:48, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:27, Ephesians 2:8-9, Philippians 1:29, 2 Timothy 2:25-26.

You have yet to give an adequate answer for this, and merely saying "who are [we] to question Him" won't suffice, because it doesn't explain your position. The bible isn't explicit about this issue (monergism vs. synergism), which is why there is much debate about it, but the bible does provide enough for a probable conclusion to be drawn. However, you cannot assert your position and then claim it authoritative based on the notion that we can't question God.

You are doing what you say that i'm doing. All I am doing is asserting this. I'll highlight your questions.

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Whoa. I know of no bible commentary that depicts Ephesians 2:8 as saying faith in this passage is the gift from God.

What part of this would you claim to having come from you?

If we are justified by faith Romans 5:1 (one of the passages that you provided), and faith is from man, not God, then you are teaching a works based salvation. See the scripture at the top also.

I'm out of time.

Dave

 

[Drew]

Dave wrote:
In the compatibilist sense, mans will is the vehicle used to reach a fixed end that is determined by God. But in no way does mans will determine the outcome.

NR wrote:
This is self-contradictory. You make two statements here: (1) man's will is used to reach an outcome and (2) mans will doesn't determine the outcome. Those two statements aren't reconcilable.

It makes sense to me.

I am not sure how this can possibly make sense. Are you saying that man and God somehow collaborate as co-agents in respect to "making a decision". I would think not, since I understand you as holding that man has no autonomous free will - no degree of freedom at all, even in a teeny-tiny way as a second-string collaborator, to exercize the power of independent choice.

I think the statement "mans will is the vehicle used to reach a fixed end that is determined by God" is unintelligible, unless your definition of the phrase "man's will" is at odds with the common sense understanding. To say that an agent exercizes free will is to say that they contribute something to a decision where that "something" is not fully prescribed by an external agent or other external forces / conditions.

Are you certain that the "compatibilists" insist on "full-on, no holds-barred, 100 %" divine sovereignty at "all levels" - that each and every event in the universe is sufficiently caused by God? You see, my present belief entails self-deterministic human free will (as per NR's terminology) together with a "soft" form of divine sovereignty - one where God indeed orchestrates and indeed fully and sufficiently causes his purposes (emphasize again - his purposes), as distinct from all events, to be achieved. This seems workable to me since it seems most reasonable that God has enough control over variables other than human free will in order to ensure his purposes are attained.

 

[Dave...]

I am not sure how this can possibly make sense. Are you saying that man and God somehow collaborate as co-agents in respect to "making a decision".

No, this is what you guys are saying. We do not need to be robots, or better yet, God does not need to control our every thought, or movement, to have a secure end.

"mans will is the vehicle used to reach a fixed end that is determined by God"

Are you certain that the "compatibilists" insist on "full-on, no holds-barred, 100 %" divine sovereignty at "all levels"

Ephesians 1:11

 

[Dave...]

Your philosophies make God's word a stumbling block for both of you. You guy's won't understand until you are willing to accept that God's word is infallible and....trust in that. Only from that will you ever be able to build from a solid foundation and know the truth.

 

[Drew]

We do not need to be robots, or better yet, God does not need to control our every thought, or movement, to have a secure end.

Hello Dave:

I must confess that I am now quite confused regarding what you believe. The above material suggests rather clearly that you do not believe that God "controls" everything. The word "control" is a little vague to me in this context. I woud like to ask you some questions (which I will try to make as precise as possible) and while I welcome the use of scripture, I would also ask that you answer in your own words as well.

1. Do you believe that man has free will in the specific sense that a man Fred (and Fred alone) has some (limited though it may well be) determining, causal role in the decisions he takes?

2. Do you believe that God has a fully sufficient and exclusive causal role in all events of any kind whatsoever - that anything that does happen is caused to happen by God and by God alone? It seems that you are saying "no" to this in your most recent post.

3. Do you agree that it would be unintelligible (self-contradictory) to assert that God has a fully sufficient and exclusive causal role in respect to all human acts/decisions while at the same time asserting that man has the kind of free will described in item 1 above?