Free Will Meticulously Examined… and Refuted!

Nonsense

Foreknowledge (learning) is not determination

Who said anything about “foreknowledge determining”?

God’s foreknowledge is Gos’s perfect knowledge of the results of his own actions… such as creating them.

Again… God determined their destiny by creating them. Your view can not escape this fact.

In your view, can you explain how it makes any sense to say God “loves” the people He creates knowing they will never accept Him and are doomed for destruction? Wouldn’t it be more “loving” to just not create them?

 
That is the necessary fact of your theology

God predetermined their destiny before they were born

It was all determined

and if you hold Adam and Eve were determined as well in contradiction to historic Calvinists creeds you have God as the author of all sin

Its blasphemy

if you hold they sinned of their own free will all your arguments collapse
So God created the cosmos yet had no idea anyone would die lost??
 
So God created the cosmos yet had no idea anyone would die lost??

fltom apparently assumes that God did not know Adam would sin until he did and that the crucifixion was Gods Plan B in reaction to Adam's "choice" to sin.

fltom must accept this👆 as his view because he knows that if he admits that the Crucifixion of Christ has always been Plan A then he must also admit that Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A.

And by his own definition if Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A then Adam was never 'free' from Gods determination of Plan A.

I will take his deflection away from this as a clear admittance to its accuracy of his view.


...
 
fltom apparently assumes that God did not know Adam would sin until he did and that the crucifixion was Gods Plan B in reaction to Adam's "choice" to sin.

fltom must accept this👆 as his view because he knows that if he admits that the Crucifixion of Christ has always been Plan A then he must also admit that Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A.

And by his own definition if Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A then Adam was never 'free' from Gods determination of Plan A.

I will take his deflection away from this as a clear admittance to its accuracy of his view.


...
Sorry that is a falsehood

and you misrepresent my position

Further your claim is illogical

and you assume that determination rather than foreknowledge was the reason for the plannoing of Christ's sacrifice

As was noted you contradict the historic Calvinist confessions and make god the author of all sin

It further seems you advocate for Superlapsarianism and equal ultimacy
 
Sorry that is a falsehood

and you misrepresent my position

How do I “misrepresent your position” when below👇 you affirm that God is reacting to his “foreknowledge”.

Further your claim is illogical

and you assume that determination rather than foreknowledge was the reason for the plannoing of Christ's sacrifice

As you can see from fltoms false understanding of “foreknowledge” as learning then reacting

fltom apparently assumes that God did not know Adam would sin until he did and that the crucifixion was Gods Plan B in reaction to Adam's "choice" to sin.

fltom must accept this👆 as his view because he knows that if he admits that the Crucifixion of Christ has always been Plan A then he must also admit that Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A.

And by his own definition if Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A then Adam was never 'free' from Gods determination of Plan A.

I will take his deflection away from this as a clear admittance to its accuracy of his view.
 
How do I “misrepresent your position” when below👇 you affirm that God is reacting to his “foreknowledge”.

When you stated I must assume God did not know

"fltom apparently assumes that God did not know Adam would sin until he did"

further

you assumed that determination rather than foreknowledge was the reason for the planning of Christ's sacrifice

As was noted you contradict the historic Calvinist confessions and make God the author of all sin

It further seems you advocate for Superlapsarianism and equal ultimacy



























 
When you stated I must assume God did not know

Yes it’s the logical conclusion of your view that has God’s knowledge determined by something external to God. You assume that God did not determine his own foreknowledge therefore the only other option is that he learned his knowledge from an external “determiner”…

It’s very simple, Did God determine all of his own knowledge or did something created determine part of his knowledge?

If you say something created Ultimatly determined then logically it must first be created before it can determine Gods knowledge.

"fltom apparently assumes that God did not know Adam would sin until he did"

Correct fltom has no justification for how God knowledge was determined before Adam determined it. Remember Adam is a part of creation.

How did God know before creating Adam “the determiner” of Gods knowledge in his view? The only option for fltoms view is that God learned from Adam.

Watch… He will not justify his logic…

further

you assumed that determination rather than foreknowledge was the reason for the planning of Christ's sacrifice

You deny that God determined his own knowledge therefore…

How is this not God reacting to something he learned from an external source?



He will not justify how God knows in his view so Again…
As you can see from fltoms false understanding of “foreknowledge” as learning then reacting

fltom apparently assumes that God did not know Adam would sin until he did and that the crucifixion was Gods Plan B in reaction to Adam's "choice" to sin.

fltom must accept this☝️ as his view because he knows that if he admits that the Crucifixion of Christ has always been Plan A then he must also admit that Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A.

And by his own definition if Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A then Adam was never 'free' from Gods determination of Plan A.

I will take his lack of justification for how God knows as a clear admittance to its accuracy of his view.
 
Last edited:
As you can see…

00:55:31 Asking “How God Knows” Is Essentially The Death Nail To Freewill

Timestamp already set just click play…


00:00:00 Intro

00:01:38 Establishing What God Can, And Can Not Logically Know
00:02:26 Properly Defining Freewill
00:04:05 Foundational Verses (Properties of God, Freedom from God, Semi-Deistic Dualism)
00:08:16 Defining Open Theism And Comparing It To General Freewill

00:12:57 Grounding Objection Explained (Logical Order)
00:15:20 Gods Foreknowledge Is Gods Perfect Knowledge Of His Own Actions
00:18:13 ⭐️The Most Ridiculous Argument From The Freewill Side = Semi-Deistic Dualism

00:20:36 Grounding Objection Applied To Calvinism (With Practical Water Bottle Example)
00:22:24 Grounding Objection Applied to Molinism (Directly Refutes “Middle Knowledge”)

00:23:35 If God Stops Exerting Power Over You… You Cease To Exist
00:27:42 Freewill Reverses The Logical Order Of God’s Omnipotence And Knowledge
00:29:19 The Foundational Verses “Brutally” Refute Open Theism
00:31:02 Difference Between Calvinism, Provisionism, And Open Theism
00:32:57 Non-Foundational Verses Can Not Prove Freewill (Freewill Challenge)

00:35:24 Refuting The Claim That Calvinism “Limits” God (Positive And Negative Limitations)
00:39:16 Examining Which System Has God “Learning” Or “Gaining” Knowledge (2 Options)
00:43:12 Psalm 139:16 Establishes God As Devine Author
00:44:50 Who Has The “Hidden” Unjustified Assumption?

00:48:07 Establishing The Omni-Attributes Of God (Hebrews 1:3, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:17)
00:51:50 Omniscience Examined (Who/What Determined Gods Knowledge)
00:55:31 Asking “How God Knows” Is Essentially The Death Nail To Freewill
00:58:49 Omnipotence Properly Defined And Understood
01:04:26 Omnipotence Is Referring To Extent Not Degree
01:07:26 Omnipotence Rock Example
01:08:32 Properly Explaining Miracles
01:10:13 Properly Defining Evil/Sin

01:14:29 Examining Counterfactuals In Molinist “Middle Knowledge”
01:17:00 God Can Only Know What Can Logically Be Known
01:19:41 Which God Is “Greater” (God That Determined Or Learned)
01:22:11 Does God “Gain” His Omniscience/Omnipotence Addressed

01:24:44 “It’s Not If God Knows It’s How God Knows” And Calvinists Justify How (See Above)
01:28:50 Key Word That Leighton Uses So He doesn’t Have To Justify His Claims
01:30:50 God Can Only Know What Can Logically Be Known (“If God Can Know”)
01:33:54 Is Gods Knowledge “Generated/Caused/Determined” By God Or Not
01:41:32 Can God “Look Out” At, And Know About, Things He Does Not Create/Uphold/Sustain
01:43:38 The Ground Of How “Prophesying/Predict” The Future?

01:46:41 “If God Causes All Things, Why Does He Need Satan?” Answered (Means Matter)
01:49:50 Understanding “Means” Tree Example

01:51:40 (Example Pharaoh) Freewill Cornered
01:52:51 (Example Thanking God For Food, Clothes, Air, Life) Freewill Cornered

01:54:04 God Foreknowledge Of If/Then Statements Properly Understood (Counterfactuals)
01:58:23 Addressing “Responsibility” (Adam In Garden Example)
02:00:28 Addressing Fatalistic Assumptions (Do your Forum Posts Matter?)
02:02:54 Example; Do your “Forum Posts” Matter? (God Gives Means “Meaning”)

02:06:13 Addressing the phrase “There’s Nothing You Can Do” Addressed
02:07:21 Everything Has Meaning Because God Gives It Meaning Established

02:09:32 Calvinists Do Not “Limit” God (Molinism Refuted)
02:11:42 “Let’s Suppose Calvinism Is True” Ok Let’s…
02:12:56 “Middle Knowledge” Defined And Refuted (Logical Order Problem)
02:15:39 Hebrews 1:3 Brought In To Destroy “Middle Knowledge”
02:16:21 Counterfactuals Biblically Understood
02:17:02 “Let’s Just Suppose Freewill Is True” ZERO Justification fltom
02:18:08 It’s Logically Impossible For A Calvinist To Also Be A Molinist
02:20:44 Jeremiah 19:5 Correctly Explained

02:25:13 Detailed Summary Of Episode
02:33:47 Conclusion
 
As you can see…

00:55:31 Asking “How God Knows” Is Essentially The Death Nail To Freewill

Timestamp already set just click play…
Tell that to the WCF and the LBC

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26–27.

You deny God's omniscience

and lend support to open theism
 
he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future…

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26–27


As you can see the WCF denies fltoms false understanding of “foreknowledge” as learning then reacting

fltom apparently assumes that God did not know Adam would sin until he did and that the crucifixion was Gods Plan B in reaction to Adam's "choice" to sin.

fltom must accept this👆 as his view because he knows that if he admits that the Crucifixion of Christ has always been Plan A then he must also admit that Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A.

And by his own definition if Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A then Adam was never 'free' from Gods determination of Plan A.

 
As you can see the WCF denies fltoms false understanding of “foreknowledge” as learning then reacting

fltom apparently assumes that God did not know Adam would sin until he did and that the crucifixion was Gods Plan B in reaction to Adam's "choice" to sin.

fltom must accept this👆 as his view because he knows that if he admits that the Crucifixion of Christ has always been Plan A then he must also admit that Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A.

And by his own definition if Adam's sin was necessary for Gods Plan A then Adam was never 'free' from Gods determination of Plan A.

You have not shown the WCF denies my understanding of foreknowledge

Being a Calvinist creed it denied it was used in God decree but it does not contradict my understanding of what it is

And again you deny the WCF that Adam was created with free will

GOD hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 59.

So lets see you are a Calvinist being rebutting by historic Calvinist creed

while making God the author of all sin and you think me not being a calvinist should be concerned that the WCF does not agree

with me

A rather worthless idea
 
You have not shown the WCF denies my understanding of foreknowledge

What is “your understanding of God’s foreknowledge” fltom?

I will take your avoidance of this question as a clear admittance to the above accuracy of your view.

 
What is “your understanding of God’s foreknowledge” fltom?

I will take your avoidance of this question as a clear admittance to the above accuracy of your view.

Thats funny

You made a statement that the WCF contradicts my understanding of foreknowledge and now you ask me what it is

If you did not know you had no basis for your statement

Foreknowledge simply means to have know before

it says nothing about learning in time
 
Thats funny

You made a statement that the WCF contradicts my understanding of foreknowledge and now you ask me what it is

I’m giving you the chance to explain but it seams you are avoiding…

If you did not know you had no basis for your statement

Waiting…

Foreknowledge simply means to have know before

You know the point of contention is not that God knows… we both believe that…

… it’s HOW God knows.



So let me rephrase the question to expose the point of contention…

What is “your understanding of HOW God knows before” fltom?

The Calvinist claim is that God knows by his nature of being God alone, independent of any external source that could determine his knowledge… God determined his own knowledge before…

How is your view different fltom?

I will take your avoidance of this question as a clear admittance to the above accuracy of your view.

 
I’m giving you the chance to explain but it seams you are avoiding…

False

I nited my understanding below

You however did not show how you could claim the WCF understanding of foreknowledge is contrary to my understanding while asking what my understanding is


Waiting…



You know the point of contention is not that God knows… we both believe that…

… it’s HOW God knows.



So let me rephrase the question to expose the point of contention…

What is “your understanding of HOW God knows before” fltom?

The Calvinist claim is that God knows by his nature of being God alone, independent of any external source that could determine his knowledge… God determined his own knowledge before…

How is your view different fltom?

I will take your avoidance of this question as a clear admittance to the above accuracy of your view.

And the non Calvinist will claim God is omniscient and knows all things being God

And you are still in contradiction to the WCF and the LBC

and make God the author of all sin.

Why don't you explain how God is not the author of sin in your theology

I will take your avoidance as clear admission you believe God is in fact the author of all sin
 
And the non Calvinist will claim God is omniscient and knows all things being God

That's why the question is HOW...

Maybe you missed it...

What is “your understanding of HOW God knows before” fltom?
 
That's why the question is HOW...

Maybe you missed it...

What is “your understanding of HOW God knows before” fltom?
On the basis of his omniscience just as the WCF supposes

Why did you fail to deny you believe God is the author of all sin?
 
Back
Top