Libertarian Free Will is an Extra-Biblical Commitment

Gosh, man, you lost me there.
Are you an algebraist theologian ?

A=x:C if and only if C=/=|i|a(x).

Makes for a good word problem in algebra, eh ?

just kidding. lol.

 

Hello pinoybaptist,

Hey, that is not bad. :laugh: How about this?

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Isreal! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!

∃x[G(x) ∧ ∀y(G(y) → (y=x))]

This reads, "There exists a being x such that this being has the property of being God, and for any being y, if y has the property of being God, then y is x." In other words, there is a God, and He is the only God.

Brian

 

Pretty cool, Brian.
Good to meet you.
Just in time for my review of math prior to placement in college.
God works in mysterious ways.
lol.

 

This makes Hebrew look like a cakewalk!

The Archangel

 

Hello Winman,

Ok, I am going to begin to make the case that God could have caused Adam to eat the apple while Adam, by an act of his will, chose to eat of the apple. The idea here is that God ultimately governs the actions that flow from the will of men. I will use Joseph as my illustration.

The first thing I want to do is make explicit the referent for the pronoun ‘it’. The word translated ‘it’ is 3rd person feminine singular. The word ‘evil’ is also feminine singular. Being that there are no other candidates, we are safe to conclude that the referent for ‘it’ is ‘evil.’

With that said, we see three groups of people being spoken of here: ‘you’ referring to Joseph’s brothers, God, and a much larger group. The intention of the brother’s in their selling Joseph to the slave traders was evil. God’s intention of the brother’s in their selling Joseph to the slave traders was for good; namely, God’s purpose was to preserve the lives of this third group of people.

I understand this passage to imply that God governed the actions of the brothers in such a way so that they would sell Joseph to the slave traders. The reason God did this was so that Joseph would eventually end up in Egypt holding a position of great influence so as to preserve lives. However, the actions of the brother were not motivated this way. Rather, they were motivated by jealousy. So, God purposes this evil action for His greater good. It is all an outworking of His overriding plan. Consider Psalm 105:17…

Notice, this verse says that God sent Joseph to Egypt. God is being spoken of as the acting agent. This passage is a very good paradigm for understanding God’s sovereign will working out through the will of men. Applying this paradigm to Adam in the garden it follows that God meant for Adam to fall for a greater good. Adam’s actions, on the other hand, were evil. Adam’s motivation was not God’s good purposes, but rather his motivations were selfish motivated by his own lust and pride. Just as God sent Joseph into Egypt, God caused Adam to become the first Adam of Romans 5 so as to show the glory and graciousness of God as found in the second Adam.

In conclusion, we see a model here that enjoys support from Scripture where God wills the evil actions of men to accomplish greater good. (Note: another very strong illustration of this is the Cross and Acts 4:27-28 where we see the evil actions of men being purposed by God.) As such, LFW is not needed to explain the origin of evil in the garden.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

Brian,

That was a good argument, and really, I agree with you. There is what is called God's permissive will. I believe this is meant that God under certain circumstance will allow men to do evil for his purpose.

A great example of this (in my opinion) is Pharaoh. The Calvinists like to quote Romans 9 that God raised up Pharoah simply to destroy him.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

The Calvinists love this passage and argue that God has a perfect right to mold one man to believe to show his mercy, and mold another man to not believe to show his wrath. But I disagree with this interpretation.

OK, we know that unbelief is sin. And we know that God never tempts any man to sin (James 1:13-14).

I believe in Romans 9 when God says "even for this same purpose have I raised thee up" he is not saying he caused Pharoah to be an unbeliever. What I believe he is saying is that because God already knew that Pharaoh would never believe he raised up Pharaoh to prominence. This verse does not say God caused Pharaoh to sin, it says it "raised him up". That is a very important difference that should be noted.

Exo 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.
20 And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which
I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.

This was spoken to Moses before he went down to confront Pharaoh. And God said he already knows Pharaoh would not let the children of Israel go, even with a mighty hand which I believe speaks of the many plagues God brought on Egypt.

But the Calvinists will say God hardened Pharaoh's heart. And the scriptures do say that several places.

Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

But now we have a problem, for if God caused Pharoah to harden his heart, then God is the author of sin. This contradicts James 1:13-14.

But when you dig deeper, you see the scriptures say Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Exo 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

Exo 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

So, which is it? Did God harden Pharaoh's heart, or did Pharaoh harden his own heart??

The answer? Both. God did harden Pharaoh's heart but not in the way that Calvinist's think. God hardened Pharaoh's heart simply by confronting him. Look what Pharaoh said when Moses first approached him.

Exo 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

Look at the arrogance of Pharaoh here. Why, he was Pharaoh, a descendant of the gods! He says he does not know the LORD and neither will he let Israel go. And he said more:

Exo 5:6 And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people, and their officers, saying,
7 Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves.
8 And the tale of the bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish ought thereof: for they be idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God.
9 Let there more work be laid upon the men, that they may labour therein; and let them not regard vain words.

Look how cruel Pharaoh was. Without hesitation he made the work of the Hebrews impossible. And he called God's word "vain words"

So, Pharoah was already very arrogant and obstinate. When Moses and Aaron spoke God's word before Pharaoh, his reaction was to become even more obstinate and rebellious.

And this is really quite normal and shown by experience, even at this forum. How often do we see posts turn into slugfests where two who disagree start out friendly enough, but in the end are calling each other names? This is human nature. Man does not like to be proven wrong, man does not like to be dictated to. So when God commanded Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go, Pharaoh became very angry and obstinate. The sin was Pharaoh's and already present in him, God simply brought it out and made it obvious.

So, God did not cause Pharaoh to harden his heart against his will. On the contrary, the scriptures say Pharoah hardened his own heart. But God allowed Pharaoh to sin, and even used his sin to display his power and wrath to the world.

 

So your point it that God allows men to willingly do evil deeds and that these deeds are allowed because they are in line with God's purposes and will.

And.. just to be clear, you are not agreeing with Brian that God makes (or is active in bringing) men do evil willingly so they must accomplish His purposes and/or will.

 

Well Allan, it is pretty obvious God allows men to do evil, look at the world we live in.

But I do not believe God makes or causes any man to sin.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Look, I'm not saying I understand it all. But I believe God knows from the beginning what certain men will do. That is not the same as God causing them to do evil, God never does that. But God knew from the beginning that Pharaoh would stubbornly resist his word. I mean, think about it, if you saw all the miracles that Pharaoh saw, would you continue to rebel? I know I wouldn't. And how do I know that I wouldn't? Because I accepted Christ when I learned there was a penalty for sin and that was death and hell. And you wouldn't be here if you were that stubborn either. So Pharaoh was a very exceptional man.

And believe it or not, I believe God can adapt to a situation to bring about his will, and I believe there is scripture that shows this. A good example is Esther.

Est 4:13 Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews.
14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

OK, this is the story of evil Haman who hated Mordecai and convinced king Ahasuerus to pass a law allowing all the people in his kingdom to kill the Jews on a certain day. And here is when Mordecai requested that queen Esther go into the king on the Jews behalf.

But look what Mordecai says to her. He says that if Esther does not go in, that God will send enlargement and deliverance from another place.

So, no matter what man does, God can still bring about his will. I do not understand this, how could anybody understand this? But that is what the scriptures show.

I heard a preacher say once that God knows every possible outcome. In other words, you cross the street at 1 PM and are struck by a car and killed. Life forever changes for your family and everyone around it. God knows what will happen in the future.

But what if you cross at 1:01 PM and are not struck and killed? Well, God knows all the events that will then happen in the future there as well.

This is too great for us to understand, but I agree that God knows all possible outcomes and can bring about his will regardless of the situation.

 

I understand and also agree, but this is the focal distinction between what you are saying and Brian.

Agreed. However this is not what Brian is saying and that was why I was looking for clarification about your statement to his post in which you state "..and really, I agree with you".

Brians position seems to be stating that God brought brings men to sin and that it was not only God's will to 'allow' them but that God caused them to sin by governing what they were willingly going do.

 

Allan

The issue between Cals and non-Cals is over sovereignty. The Cals insist that if man plays any part in his salvation, then this robs God of his sovereignty. But I disagree. If it is God's will to give men free will, if it is God's will to give man a choice in salvation, then his sovereignty is not violated. In fact, if this is the case and it is God's will to give man free will and choice in salvation, then it is the Calvinists who are actually violating God's sovereignty.

And this very argument was used against Jesus. His opponents called him a blasphemer because he claimed to be God.

John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

The Jews thought this absolute blasphemy for Jesus to say he was equal with God, and God himself. And on the surface, it seems reasonable for them to be offended like this. But the problem was that they did not know the scriptures that foretold God would come in the flesh.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Jesus was and is God, and Jesus did believe himself to be equal with God.

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Here Jesus said "I am". The Jews understood this perfectly, this was the name God gave Moses when he saw the burning bush. This is why they picked up stones to stone him, they considered it blasphemy and robbing God.

So, just because some here believe it robs God for man to have free choice does not make it so.

 

You are correct. Free will is not biblical. But from my experience on the web, most Arminians don't know most of the bible including; Jeremiah 10:23, Provers 16;9, Romans 9;11-25, Romans 13:1, Romans 8:20, Romans 8:8-9, Philippians 2:13, John 6:64-65, John 15:16, MT. 11:25-27, Ezekiel 36:27, 1 Corinthians 2;12-14, 1 John 4:4, 1 Corinthians 1:8, Jude 24, 2 Peter 2:19, Romans 7:14-25, Galatians 5:17, Job 12:24, 2 Thess. 2:11, MT. 10:29 for starters. ;)

 

Act 16:26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed.
Act 16:27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
Act 16:28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

At this very point the jailer is made his decision. He came seeking Salvation because, he had been listening over time to what paul had been saying. Sure he was moved by the Holy Spirit no one denys this but if he had already been regenerated then how come he didn't know he was saved?. Why did he have to ask Paul anything if his understanding was given to him?. If God had already opend his mind he should have known the answer but he didn't.

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

But first they simply told him the truth and that was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Verse 31 alone is the Key to the Kingdom of God.

Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

The man's whole family was saved because he willfully asked how can I be saved.

You most likely will not see it because, your holding on to the false idea that you were regenerated before you had faith and scripture never says that at all. What's worse is you know that it doesn't and still you believe it.

I showed you my reason for believing how I was saved lets' see your's
MB

 

Maybe your Bible is missing some pages, my Bible has free will in it.

Lev 22:18,21,23 Lev 23:38, Num 15:3, Num 29:39, Deut 12:6,17, Deut 16:10, Deut 22:23, 2 Chr 31:14, Ezr 1:4, Ezr 3:5, Ezr 7:13,16, Ezr 8:28, Psa 119:108

That a man has a voluntary will (which by definition is free) is mentioned several times.

Lev 1:3, Lev 7:16, Eze 46:12

Men are told to choose many times.

Deut 30:19, Jos 24:15,22

The Bible says men have selfwill.

Gen 49:6

For starters. ;)

 

Hello Winman,

I have carefully read your post. I will quote the sections that I think get right at the heart of the matter. If I miss anything that you think is critical, please let me know.

Let’s consider James 1:13-14. I am not sure what people mean when they say, “God is not the author of sin,” but James 1:13-14 does not use these words. James says (NASB)…

This verse does not say that God cannot ordain sin. It says God does not tempt anyone. God’s sovereign control of the heart of man is an altogether different action than the act of someone tempting someone else – like a child tempting another child to smoke a cigarette. As such, I think the argument falls short for why God could not harden Pharaoh’s heart.

I have two key points here: (1) You speak of God causing “Pharaoh to harden his heart against his will.” This is *not* my position, but I think you know this, and probably just misspoke. God’s working on someone’s heart is never such that it goes against their will. Rather, He controls their will such that they do precisely what they want to do. In other words, their actions are always in accordance with their will. (2) Pharaoh wanted to harden his heart. No one is disputing this. However, the issue is not with what Pharaoh wants to do, but rather what is the cause of this “wanting to do.” You noted that Scripture both speaks of God hardening Pharaohs heart and Pharaoh hardening his heart. I think this simply another example of what I pointed out regarding the actions ascribed to both Joseph's brothers and God. Let’s consider that more closely in regards to some things you said.

I agree that God permitted Joseph’s brothers to sell Joseph to the slave traders. However, it is my claim that Genesis 50:20 and Psalm 105:17 teaches much more than this. The passage in Genesis says that God meant the evil against Joseph for good. This speaks of intentionality and purpose. In fact, the Hebrew indicates devising or planning. God actively planned this event. So much so, that Psalms 105:17 says that it was God who sent Joseph into Egypt. The verb used for ‘sent’ is the same verb as found here…

As such, these passages do not speak of God passively allowing sin, but rather actively meaning, planning and devising for there to be sin to bring about His intended purposes. But in the end, even if you reject this, your basis for doing so is not because Genesis 50:20 and Psalm 105:17 lead you to reject this. Your rejection of my paradigm is because you do not like what you deam to be the negative consequences of my paradigm (God being the "author of sin," God punishing me for actions He ordained, mankind not being first cause agents, etc...).

With all of that said. I think the paradigm of God’s control that we see in Genesis 50:20 provides a cogent answer for how Adam could sin in the garden even if he was created good and did not have LFW. Since this is possible, your excellent argument for LFW falls short. I am looking forward to your thoughts on what I have said here.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

Well Brian, in my opinion, you are rationalizing so as to attain the result you want.

The Bible says God is HOLY. God is without sin, and the Bible says God never tempts a man to sin (James 1:13-14)

But God is also a God of love. And love necessarily by definition requires freedom. If you put a gun to a girl's head and forced her to marry you, would that be love? Of course not. And I don't know about you, but I would not want to force or cause her to love or marry me. I want that girl to love me because she of her own free and independent will loves me. And if I had the power to put it in her will to love me I would not. For then she would not truly love me, she would love me because I caused her to. You can rationalize it away if you choose, but if God puts it in my will to believe, then I do not truly have choice. I am not believeing because I want to, I am believeing because I have to.

God had to give man free will, otherwise he would not love us, and we could not love him. Love requires trust. You have to give someone the choice to love you or hate you, otherwise it is not real.

God knew man would sin. He did not cause man to sin, but he knew men would sin. And so from the beginning, he had already provided a way for man to be reconciled to him. God can be just in punishing sin, but he can also be just in forgiving us our sin. So his holiness is not violated.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

And that we have this choice of love and hate is shown in scripture.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Does this make sense to you Brian?

 

Hello Winman,

Yes, it makes sense to me. I do not agree with it, though. You appeal to love as requiring LFW. Your argument hangs on the idea that “All true love is a love that is chosen by someone with LFW.” Otherwise, you say, love is not real. But I reject this definition for love. Love is simply a disposition of the will. True love is shown to be true love by the actions (fruit) of the person (ex., if you love me you will keep my commandments). These actions are a consequence of my choices, which are a consequence of my will. So, the disposition of the will is what determines whether or not I love. All of this is independent of whether or not the will is in bondage to sin or has LFW. In other words, true love is not determined by whether the will is free or not, but is determined by what the will chooses.

Your argument here, although a good argument, is not a Biblical argument. Your argument is philosophical in nature - arguing from a certain conception of the nature of love to LFW. Your conception of love is not taught in the Bible. Rather, it is brought to the text.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this, but I think you are saying that I am making the Scriptures fit some preconceived commitment to God’s sovereignty. I grant this is possible, and I am certainly accusing you of the same thing. But, look at my argument from Genesis 50:20 and Psalm 105:17. I tried to present an argument from the text itself. Here are the facts…

(1) The text in Genesis says that Joseph’s brothers meant, planned, or devised the evil that they did.
(2) The text in Genesis says that God meant, planned, or devised the evil performed by Joseph’s brothers.
(3) The text in Psalms says that God was the one who sent Joseph into Egypt.

Those are the facts. So, how are these facts best understood? The answer you give regarding God’s permissive will does not do justice to what these verses say about God’s actions. God was not passive in the sense of permitting the sin of Joseph’s brothers. These verses paint a picture of a God who was active and intentional. The paradigm I bring to the text preserves this. It explains how both man and God can be acting agents in the same event. God affects the will so that the men willingly choose to perform the action. Is this really a rationalization on my part to arrive at the desired conclusion? Again, it may be. But between our two positions, I would argue that my paradigm more faithfully represents Genesis 50:20 and Psalm 105:17 than does your paradigm of a passive permissive will.

I have asserted that the Bible does not teach LFW. Although you have brought forth some good arguments, I think they have all fallen short in one way or another. So far, the burden has been on you. Let me switch gears and assume some of the burden in this discussion. I would like to argue that apart from God granting belief, no one can believe. Would you agree that if this is the case, then in terms of our believing our wills do not enjoy LFW? If so, I will take the next post to put forth an argument for this. Then you can enjoy the right to poke holes in my arguments instead of the other way around. Does that work for you?

Warm Regards,

Brian

 

This is where you are going wrong in my opinion. Did God know Joseph's brothers would sell him into slavery? Yes. Did God permit it. Yes? Did God want Joseph to be sent to Egypt? Yes. Did God make Joseph's brothers sin? NO.

As I have shown before in the example from Esther, God will bring about his will regardless of what men choose.

Est 4:13 Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews.
14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

Once again (getting a little tired of repeating myself), here Mordecai wanted his niece queen Esther to go in to king Ahsureus on behalf of the Jews. Evil Haman who hated the Jews and Mordecai especially had convinced the king to pass a law allowing the people of his kingdom to kill all the Jews.

But here is the part I am trying to show. Look what Mordecai said to Esther. He said that if Esther did not go in to the king to save the Jews, then God would deliver them some other way.

If Joseph's brothers had not sold him into Egypt, then somehow God would have still made sure he was sent there. He did not make the brothers sin, but he used the sin to bring about his purpose.

 

Hello Winman,

I understand the feelings, brother. ;)

I get that you believe God had no ordaining action for the evil done by Joseph's brothers. You believe God passively allowed them to sin, and then used the sin to bring about His purpose. But Genesis 50:20 does not say this. It says that God meant, planned or devised the selling of Joseph to the slave traders. God *meant* it - not God used it, or God turned it around. So, you are changing the passage to fit your system. Let's consider the crucifixion.

Notice, the actions of Herod, Pilate, the Romans and the Israelites in the crucifixion did whatever God's hand and purpose predestined to occur. I want you to consider the word 'pupose' in this verse. BDAG defines this to be the decision or resolution according to God's will. In other words, we have another picture of God deciding the evil acts of men according to His will. They did what God purposed to occur. To change this into God purposed to occur what He saw them do of their own LFW is to is to turn this verse on its head. The verse says explicitly that these people did what God purposed for them to do - not the other way around.

Before I get to the positive argument that people cannot believe apart from God granting them belief, I want to make sure that we are very clear that you are bringing your LFW commitment to the text in Genesis. Do you concede this point?

Sincerely,

Brian

 

No, you are the bringing your presupposition to the texts.
The word 'meant' does not convey your choice of definition.
God knowing what a man will choose and allowing it to be (based upon the choices God gives him), shows that God's intention for allowing it and mans reason for do it are not necessarily the same things. Thus God can allow men to sin, and mean for that action to be used from something other than man's intended purpose.

Therefore 'meant' does not mean God is actively directing men to sin but that God's plan for what is/has happened is different than what was intended by men. Thus 'meant' here refers to God's intentions for not only know what was to happen but also in allowing it happen because it conformed to His plan even though it differed from what the men desired of it.

Umm.. No. At least not in the manner you wish to define it.
Yes, Christ's death was set out by God but God did not influence anyone to sin nor was He actively involved in their sinning. What happened was not by chance, it was by design and all non-cals and even Arminians agree with this. However the design takes into account man willingly choosing to sin apart from God's influence to do such, NOT because of it. However the stage is set by God for what He knows is to transpire by His workings and man's choices.

However I can say you devate extrordinarily from Calvinism or Reformed teachings. The reformed view denies God's active (positive) involvment in making men commit sin or that God is involved in influencing men to sin. So I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from unless it is an extreme view which might border on the hyper end, of the Reformed teachings. I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying that since you devate so drastically here from historical as well as todays mainline view, I don't know where you are coming from. To the Reformed view and most all others as well, this goes against God's charactor and thus against the very nature of God Himself.

It seems, to me at least, very clear that it is not Winman but you that is bringing the presuppositions of your view upon the text.

Thus far you haven't proved in the smallest degree that man 'never' (even in the Garden) had free-will.

 

Isaiah 54:16, "For I the Lord have created the destroyer to work havoc..." God could bind Satan in an instant. But he doesn't. So whatever Satan does, God is allowing him to do for His purposes. ;)

But unfortunately, most people have a "hippie guru" concept of God and that man and Satan thwarts his plans. :laugh: Wrong. as Jesus tells us in MT. 10:29, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet I tell you not one of them falls to the ground apart from the will of my Father.'