No. You have been destined to believe in free will 
Good one!! I guess I had to say that, though, being all determined and such.
Yes, but your image sports the better looking beard in terms of style, colour & overall appearance. Also your cheery pic reminds me of Santa. 
In “The James Dobson Nightmare”, Martin Zender pens:
"Were Dr. Dobson to bare the bones of this orthodox monster, this is what we would read:
“Sorry, my friend, but, unless your daughter comes to her senses, she is lost. If this is to be, then your tears will mean nothing, for not even the perfect blood of Jesus Christ can save little girls who do not first love Him. Your precious daughter, I regret to tell you, is inches from eternal torment. The soft, golden hair you once stroked may be minutes from an eternity in the claws of Satan. I know that sounds harsh, but I must not shrink from telling it to you, for I am a minister of the Good News. From what you have told me, your daughter’s salvation is quite doubtful. I’m sorry. Your daughter, of all people, needs God’s blessed force. But God will not force Himself on anyone. He’s a polite, eavesdropping God, a hopeful spectator in His own creation, waiting in the wings to see if we will like Him. He leaves these important decisions to us, my friend. I, myself, was wise enough to choose Him. Your daughter, apparently, is not.”
“Is she sorry enough for her sin? Personally, I don’t believe she is. But for her sake, and for yours, I do hope things change. And soon. Good luck.”
The bible is replete with “freewill” choice… I’m not talking philosophical libertarianism, just basic “freewill” i.e., the ability to choose. Sometimes our choices are limited to or by given boundaries, but within that there can be freewill choice. In some cases it is possible to cross certain predetermined boundaries although there are likely negative consequences waiting, but a freewill choice can be made nonetheless.
Example 1) I’ll tell my kids to play as you will in the yard, but don’t go beyond, i.e., for to do so might pose a problem aka, a negative consequence for which freewill choice brings with it accountability.
Example 2) God might tell Adam to eat as you will from all the trees in the garden, bar one, i.e., for to do so might pose a problem, aka a negative consequence for which freewill choice brings accountability.
Now you have acknowledged humans have “free will” to which I agree, and that’s what I’m saying the bible is talking about. Introducing LFW only muddies the water as I’ve already said, and is not necessary in terms of understanding the likes of Josh 24:15 et al.
As for LFW… it seems to me a mixed bag which according to certain definitions I could agree in part but not in others, but again WHY bring that theory to the text?? For example…
Well I’d agree with this up until… “not controlled by others or by outside forces” — well to certain extents we can be. But where’s the value in dragging up your opposition to LFW as though it is supposedly a problem for Josh 24:15 etc? So although agreeing in part with some of that definition I’d make a lousy libertarian. It seems to me hard-core determinists like to play up what they consider any perceived weaknesses in LFW but then errantly transpose THAT carte blanch right across everything else — hence the muddying mess.
Do you agree that dogs make choices? Do they have freewill, the ability to choose?
I defined free will as something dogs have & is 100% determined, not as LFW, which is what this topic is about. So clearly our definitions of free will were not the same.
How is a human beings’ morality controlled by outside forces?
If freewill is controlled by others, then how is it free, rather than in slavery or bondage?
Were those in Joshua free to choose morally to “certain extents”, like 50%, or were they 100% free to choose, or totally controlled by others?
Clearly you are just obfuscating… you’ve already conceded that humans have “freewill” — my very point.
They were 100% FREE to choose to follow Yahweh in accord with their leader Joshua… those who did had a different outcome to those who CHOSE otherwise… such was their own FREEWILL decision, i.e., their choice. You can deny this reality of Scripture that you don’t like and that is your own freewill choice. 
Back to my question. Which I DIDN"T see an answer to - in all “this engaging dialogue,”
I said that God would tell us who is right - at the end of time. This might be sooner then we think 
The man whose biblical doomsday claim has some nervously eyeing Sept. 23
Traditional Calvinists do reconcile free will and determination, via the Biblical passages - describing God’s sovereign… See gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html. Not that I agree with them - mind you.
Let me post this question. And hopefully - it will be answered - before God tells us on Sept 23 or thereafter. Hypothetically, if I were to embrace Calvinism…Then why shouldn’t I side, with the Compatibilism majority viewpoint - over the no-free-will, minority viewpoint?
Here’s an interesting article I’ve encountered:
A Denial of Theological Determinism
After answering my Calvinist question - then try this one:
Because Paidon logically refuted that in another thread. Or, rather, pointed out that there is no difference between the two views. I then posted his remarks on Christianforums.com challenging Calvinists to answer Paidon’s comments & - weeks later - not a single Calvinist has answered. The Compatibilist idea of freewill is not LFW, but opposed to it, and actually the same as slavery to sin, or Calvin’s bondage of the will.
Here is Calvinist Matt Slick’s article contrasting LFW & Compatibilist freewill:
-
This needs to be proven, not just stated. And “non-rational factors” defined.
-
In determinism it is ultimately God who sets in motion the factors which form people’s beliefs. These include physical objects like books and persons such as humans, spirit beings & the Hoy Spirit, etc
"THE NECESSITY OF ACTION
"In light of Romans 11:36, I freely agree (in essence if not in semantics) with the renowned physicist Albert Einstein, who said, “I do not at all believe in human freedom in the [popular] philosophical sense. Everybody acts not only from external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. . . . A man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible *, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motion it undergoes. . . . [This realization] mercifully mitigates the easily paralyzing sense of responsibility * and prevents us from taking ourselves and other people all too seriously; it is conducive to a view of life which, in particular, gives humor its due”
*1
“If men had not this false refuge of human responsibility, many more would be forced to reconsider the fiendish doctrines of human destiny which they hold. As it is, if their hearts are not utterly hard, they will not believe in the damnation of infants, and are led into many non-scriptural notions as to the age of accountability, the appointment of sponsors at baptism, confirmation, and what not, seeing that eternal torture or annihilation can never be justified in the case of those who are not fully answerable. If they could only see that God holds none responsible, they would find everlasting suffering or death utterly repugnant and impossible. ‘Responsibility’ is a twin heresy with eternal doom. . .”2 "
Yes, I do know what Matt Slick and Calvinist Got Questions - has to say, regarding these matters. I just think that the Compatibilism view makes more sense to me - then the no free will version. i just look at it, as 2 views, acting in tandem or parallel - God’s sovereign will and free will.
But - to be honest - I have much more difficulty, swallowing the no free will, minority view version. Perhaps because I can find any current, profession theologian or philosopher of notoriety - giving me valid reasons - to buy into it.
And If I were a betting man…if you put Paidion’s objections, on Matt Slick’s forums…I’m certain he could logically answer them.
In other words, don’t go to a Christian forum - where Calvinists may or may not be. Go to a Calvinist forum. Especially one run, by a logical Calvinist (i.e. forums.carm.org/vb5/).
Not that I would be persuaded to either view. But I can sympathize and understand, the compatiblism viewpoint.
"MISUSE OF VOLITIONAL TERMS
"At the outset, advocates of free will commandeer the word “choice” (and its synonyms) and boldly incorporate the thought of avoidability into the term itself, even though this is actually no part of the meaning of any volitional synonym. Instead it is merely what most believe to be true concerning human choice. This extremely common practice is completely unwarranted, and leads to much error. For a choice is simply that which is chosen or selected; man’s opinion as to whether or not choices are avoidable forms no part of the meaning of the word itself and should not be forced into it.
"It is most unwise to impose the idea of “avoidability” onto the word “choice,” as if this somehow validated the concept of freewill choice. To do so is both linguistically incorrect and logically fallacious. It is also unfair, and exposes its own prejudice. Worse still, it is deceptive, for to those who are unable to think clearly, it seems to give much credence to the idea of free will.
"Reading the idea of avoidability into the word choice is the equivalent of reading the word “flat” into the word “earth,” or the word “endless” into the word “eons”: (1) “The only earth fit to be called such is a flat one.” (2) “The only number of eons worthy of the saint’s life and the sinner’s punishment is an infinite number.” (3) “The only choice worthy of the name is an avoidable one.”
"The problem is only compounded by those who otherwise speak plainly, who may not fully realize that clarity of expression is needed on this theme as well. We are not at all suggesting any undue or gratuitous strictness, but only that we avoid being ambiguous or evasive. We must define our terms and speak clearly in order to be clearly understood, so as not to be sadly misunderstood.
“Due to common misconception, one might well suppose that only the proponent of free will believes that men do whatever they want, according to their own choice or voluntarily. Yet these are our convictions as well, and are concepts which are fully in accord with our teaching. The fact that we act according to our own choice, and, had we chosen to do so, could have acted differently than we did, is not at issue and is acknowledged by all.”
**I thought as much… you’re not able yourself to actually just answer MY post ** 
Hard Determinists can refer to free will existing just as Compatibilists do. [Does that, then, make them Compatibilists ?] In fact not only have i done so recently in this thread, i even one-upped the Compatibilists, and let dogs have freewill, too.
Concordant.org seem to be hard determinists, yet they affirm:
“Due to common misconception, one might well suppose that only the proponent of free will believes that men do whatever they want, according to their own choice or voluntarily. Yet these are our convictions as well, and are concepts which are fully in accord with our teaching. The fact that we act according to our own choice, and, had we chosen to do so, could have acted differently than we did, is not at issue and is acknowledged by all.” [by James Coram] concordant.org/expositions/his-a … ice-deity/
In the interests of presenting information, I found this layman’s article informative:
P.S. Please also note the related links - near the bottom (for fatalism and hard determinism).
That right there is a penetrating question, qaz.
The Westminster Creed tries to get around it by what is tecnically called ‘gobbledegook’ - God may ordain the evil that men do, but in no way is He responsible for it. Exactly how that can be, is exactly the question.
I am not surprised. I get a lot of this around Xmas time. Sometimes I am even greeted, “Hello Santa!” But I reply, “Oh no, I’m not Santa. I’m his son.”
In the same way it is fair & righteous to “punish” a dog when it misbehaves that it may learn, be disciplined, trained, act properly, etc
The Greek word often translated “punishment” at Mt.25:46 can mean chastisement or correction.
Whom God loves, He chastens, the Bible says.
Unsaved children cannot help but misbehave, for they are slaves of sin. Is it unfair for parents to “punish” them. No, it is wise & caring.
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. (Prov.13:24)