But you are not answering the question as all Calvinists fail to do… You are trying to say that God was just showing man who and what he was… But what the hell good is that if man has no ability to choose? Why would God want a being that he has already determined to be a certain way to somehow change that and choose a different way? Craziest stuff I’ve ever heard. 
I haven’t suggested that being in the image of God implies that we have EVERY divine attribute. But God’s attribute of free will we do possess. Otherwise, God is the author of all the evil that we do. How’s that for logic?
I am aware of the OT verse that states “God creates evil.” But that is not a reference to moral evil, but to those natural events such as earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, etc. that man considers to be evil since they often cause death. But in my understanding, even natural disasters are not directly created by God, but are the result of the fall of man and of all nature.
Consider that it is written in Genesis that God provided plants as the food for both human beings and other mammals. Yet the main food of wolves is the flesh of other mammals. Is that not one of the consequences of the fall of all nature? Wolves even developed teeth for tearing flesh—but in the beginning it was not so.
I remember once when mosquitoes were biting me and sucking out my life blood, I speculated that in the beginning they were created to suck the juices of plants rather than the blood of animals. A few weeks later, I came across an article in a science magazine that reported an experiment performed on moquitoes. They were isolated in an enclosure where no animal life was available to them—only plants. They sucked the juices of the plants and produced their young just as readily. This fact seemed to support my speculation.
I keep getting this when Don posts an image - just the word ‘image’ and then a warning about it.
Any ideas what I’m doing wrong?
Almost this entire whole thread has been a debate between the positions of Determinism and Libertarian Free Will (LFW). LFW has been mentioned continually dozens of times. Furthermore, i explained it to you with examples and a link to a site that defines it. In so doing i showed you the distinction between three things: will, free will and LFW.
Now the question is what is meant by “free will”. I doubt we think alike re the definition of that phrase. I’ve tried to point out what i understand by it. Perhaps it’s time you defined your understanding of it & your thoughts on LFW.
Can I choose to be a determinist? 
Q1…The knowledge of God is ultimately why we exist. Jesus said, This is life eonian, to know God & Jesus Christ (Jn.17:3). God also wills we learn things in this mortal life such as the law of God, and have the experience of good and evil, etc.
Q2…God has determined that all men are enslaved to sin (Rom.11:32, etc). Obviously that is not the end goal, but a means to an end, which is described in the same verse.
Dave, I am not sure you’re doing ANYTHING wrong. The image shows on my screen. But when I was using photobucket, that began to happen, because they made it happen. They wanted me to pay a monthly fee. So I went to another site for my images. The one above your post was a George MacDonald image. It shows up fine in my computer.
Would you other folks please tell me whether or not you are seeing an image of George MacDonald?
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.
