What is Compatibilism?

T

TomFL

Guest
We can give him some credit, he may not be full Molinist, but he’s at least a 1 point Molinist!
So is Matt Slick

So does that mean he is not a Calvinist

Is Middle Knowledge biblical?​

I certainly agree that God knows what any person will do in any situation. After all, God knows all things possible as well as all things actual. This is part of his nature to know everything
 

Sketo

Well-known member
So is Matt Slick

So does that mean he is not a Calvinist

Is Middle Knowledge biblical?​

I certainly agree that God knows what any person will do in any situation. After all, God knows all things possible as well as all things actual. This is part of his nature to know everything
Another misrepresentation of TomFL!

(For the full context that TomFL intentionally omitted...)


Matt Slick on Middle Knowledge...
“So, now we have things happening in the universe outside of God's sovereign control, and God must play with the hand dealt to him. As good as an apologist Dr. Craig is, I find his statement to be disturbing. how is anything that occurs in a universe that God created and which all things work after the counsel of his will, be outside of his control. Furthermore? A hand has been dealt to God and he must work with what has been given to him? The implication is that there is something outside the control and sovereignty of God to which God must submit. This is wrong...

Conclusion
Middle knowledge is not biblical because it requires that God's knowledge is, in some sense, contingent upon the libertarian free will choices of creatures. Therefore, God's knowledge is not absolute in all things but is contingent upon his creation. This violates God aseity which is his non-contingency in all things. And, libertarian free will violates Scripture by assuming that the unbeliever is capable, under the right circumstances, of freely receiving Christ. So, middle knowledge which is based on God's contingent knowledge libertarian free will creatures is false.” -Matt Slick
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Another misrepresentation of TomFL!

(For the full context that TomFL intentionally omitted...)


Matt Slick on Middle Knowledge...
“So, now we have things happening in the universe outside of God's sovereign control, and God must play with the hand dealt to him. As good as an apologist Dr. Craig is, I find his statement to be disturbing. how is anything that occurs in a universe that God created and which all things work after the counsel of his will, be outside of his control. Furthermore? A hand has been dealt to God and he must work with what has been given to him? The implication is that there is something outside the control and sovereignty of God to which God must submit. This is wrong...

Conclusion
Middle knowledge is not biblical because it requires that God's knowledge is, in some sense, contingent upon the libertarian free will choices of creatures. Therefore, God's knowledge is not absolute in all things but is contingent upon his creation. This violates God aseity which is his non-contingency in all things. And, libertarian free will violates Scripture by assuming that the unbeliever is capable, under the right circumstances, of freely receiving Christ. So, middle knowledge which is based on God's contingent knowledge libertarian free will creatures is false.” -Matt Slick
This was the key point

Is Middle Knowledge biblical?​

I certainly agree that God knows what any person will do in any situation. After all, God knows all things possible as well as all things actual.

That in itself is middle knowledge


That does not require Molinism or Libertarian free will

Matt rejects it in the end because he associates it with Libertarian free will and rejects Libertarian free will

That is not necessary however

The fact that God does know what a man might do in any circumstance however was affirmed

and in fact we have an example of it in the bible

recorded in 1 Samuel 23. At this point in the biblical narrative, the Philistines were attacking Keilah. David asked the Lord if he should go to Keilah to fight the Philistines, and the Lord said that he should. David’s companions were fearful and so David enquired a second time. At Keilah, fearing that Saul would attack him there, David asked the Lord whether Saul would come to Keilah. At this point, we read the following conversation: “And the Lord said ‘He will come down.’ Then he said ‘Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, ‘They will surrender you.’ Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go” (1 Samuel 23:11–13).

It is rather dishonest of you state i deliberate left anything off

I remember seeing this previously and went to the beginning of the passage is it biblical
and concluded he did based upon the comments above concluding Matt supports it

And it still seems to me he supports it in principle but rejects the Molinist attachment of Lebertarian free will
 

zerinus

Well-known member
* * *
Conclusion
Middle knowledge is not biblical because it requires that God's knowledge is, in some sense, contingent upon the libertarian free will choices of creatures. Therefore, God's knowledge is not absolute in all things but is contingent upon his creation. This violates God aseity which is his non-contingency in all things. And, libertarian free will violates Scripture by assuming that the unbeliever is capable, under the right circumstances, of freely receiving Christ. So, middle knowledge which is based on God's contingent knowledge libertarian free will creatures is false.” -Matt Slick
The Bible does affirms a certain amount of "middle knowledge":

1 Samuel 23:

8 And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men.
9 And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod.
10 Then said David, O Lord God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.
11 Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will come down.
12 Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up.
13 Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth.


So Matt Slick is wrong about that. But whether that means that it is now therefore legitimate to build an entire theology around it, as Tom is now doing, is also in doubt.
 

Sketo

Well-known member
This was the key point

Is Middle Knowledge biblical?​

I certainly agree that God knows what any person will do in any situation. After all, God knows all things possible as well as all things actual.

That in itself is middle knowledge

It seems to me you are reading your “point” into his quote more than he is agreeing to middle knowledge!
But that’s my opinion!
We would have to ask him to know for sure.
 

Sketo

Well-known member
Second the bible nowhere states God gave the Israelites the desire to kill Christ
This is your “Neutral” Strawman argument!

This is you assuming man is “neutral” and if God determine that Israelites kill Christ then you assume he must “give the Israelites the desire” as if it was not there to begin with!

This is not Determinism!

Natural man is not “Neutral”!
 
T

TomFL

Guest
This is your “Neutral” Strawman argument!
Sorry but that is nonsense
TomFL said:
Second the bible nowhere states God gave the Israelites the desire to kill Christ

Being non neutral does not mean you have a desire to kill

Was that you experience before being saved ?

I wouldn't think so


This is your “Neutral” Strawman argument!

You make no sense

A strawman is when you misrepresent another view so as to knock it down

If anyone is making a strawman here it is you as I have not stated a single word about being neutral

You should stop misrepresenting me
 

zerinus

Well-known member
This is your “Neutral” Strawman argument!

This is you assuming man is “neutral” and if God determine that Israelites kill Christ then you assume he must “give the Israelites the desire” as if it was not there to begin with!

This is not Determinism!

Natural man is not “Neutral”!
And what has any of this got to do with "Compatibilism," which is supposed to be the subject of this thread?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
The I’m curious what prompts you to say it?

It also does not mean God “gives the desire” either!
Have you dealt with your fake strawman argument

This is your “Neutral” Strawman argument!
Sorry but that is nonsense
TomFL said:
Second the bible nowhere states God gave the Israelites the desire to kill Christ
Being non neutral does not mean you have a desire to kill

Was that you experience before being saved ?

I wouldn't think so


This is your “Neutral” Strawman argument!
You make no sense

A strawman is when you misrepresent another's view so as to knock it down

If anyone is making a strawman here it is you as I have not stated a single word about being neutral

You should stop misrepresenting me

now

you state

The I’m curious what prompts you to say it?

this

Being non neutral does not mean you have a desire to kill

It also does not mean God “gives the desire” either!

Indeed it has always been my claim God does not determine all of man's sinful desires

Reply
Report
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Correct!


This is not my view so who’s view is this? Or is this a misrepresentation of a poster’s view, on this forum, “so as to knock it down”?
And it is not my view so the crucifixion is no evidence for a claim that God determines all of man's sinful desires

and seeing you agree you cannot affirm God meticulously determines all things

It was not a strawman at all but a logical response challenging the idea God meticulously determines all things

He does not
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Why do you assume that...
TomFL said:
the idea God meticulously determines all things
...can only mean...
TomFL said:
God gave the Israelites the desire to kill Christ
...???
Because that is the only logical conclusion of the "compatibilist" theology you adhere to. It is a false, deceptive, and dishonest theology. It argues that your choices and decisions are "freely" made, but your motives and desires which causes you to make those choices and decisions are predetermined by God. It requires an insane amount of stupidity to fall that illogical nonsense, and equate that idea with any legitimate concept of the freedom of action, freedom of thought, or freedom of the will.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Why do you assume that...


...can only mean...



...???
Do you not understand ?

I used scripture to show God is not the source of man's sinful desires

according to that God did not cause the Jews desire to kill Christ

You agreed

The result is twofold

1 God does not meticulous determine all things (their desires were not determined by God)

2 If God did not determine their desire, they did so freely

They freely entertained the idea to kill Christ and they freely desired it

and there is free will in action
 

Sketo

Well-known member
Do you not understand ?
I understand completely!
You assume that “God meticulous determine all things” must mean, and can only mean, “God gives the desire” for sin!

This is NOT true! It is your assumption!
I used scripture to show God is not the source of man's sinful desires
That’s great! We both agree!
according to that God did not cause the Jews desire to kill Christ
Also great!
You agreed
Yes.
The result is twofold
Assumption...
1 God does not meticulous determine all things
Does not equate!
(their desires were not determined by God)
determined the desire” does not equate to “gave the desire”!

This is your mutually exclusive assumption!
2 If God did not determine their desire, they did so freely
If God did not “give” them “their desire”, they did so “voluntary”!

Also God did not prevent their desire which determined the outcome!
If God determined a different outcome God could have prevented their desire in many different ways... but he did not!

determined the desire” does not equate to “gave the desire”!

gave the desire” is your strawman because it is a misrepresentation of “determined”!

They freely entertained the idea to kill Christ and they freely desired it
They voluntarily entertained the idea to kill Christ and they voluntarily desired it
and there is free will in action
and there is voluntary will in action
 
Last edited:
T

TomFL

Guest
I understand completely!
You assume that “God meticulous determine all things” must mean, and can only mean, “God gives the desire” for sin!

This is NOT true! It is your assumption!

That’s great! We both agree!

Also great!

Yes.

Assumption...

Does not equate!

determined the desire” does not equate to “gave the desire”!
This is your mutually exclusive assumption!

If God did not “give” them “their desire”, they did so “voluntary”!
Also God did not prevent their desire which determined the outcome!
If God determined a different outcome God could have prevented their desire in many different ways... but he did not!

“determined the desire” does not equate to “gave the desire”!

“gave the desire” is your strawman because it is a misrepresentation of “determined”!


They voluntarily entertained the idea to kill Christ and they voluntarily desired it

and there is voluntary will in action
I am sorry but you make absolutely no sense here

The bible is clear evil desires do not come from God

It is not possible to separate that from his determination

Clearly if he determined something it came from himr

Therefore If you agree God did not determine the desire to kill Christ

then you cannot state God determines all things

and if he does not determine all things that which he does not determine is left to the free will of man

and you have logically supported the concept of free will
 

Sketo

Well-known member
I am sorry but you make absolutely no sense here
Take your glasses off and you might see better.
The bible is clear evil desires do not come from God
Agreed...

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. - Mark 7:21-22

It is not possible to separate that from his determination
The source does not necessarily have to be God, as you assume, in order for God to determine if the act comes to pass or not!
Clearly if he determined something it came from himr
Not necessary (see above)
Therefore If you agree God did not determine the desire to kill Christ
I agree God did not give the desire to kill Christ

They do not equate!
then you cannot state God determines all things
Incorrect conclusion!
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
sketo said

They voluntarily entertained the idea to kill Christ and they voluntarily desired it

I would agree but is added is Gods predetermination of them to voluntarily kill Christ. Acts 4:27
For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Interesting are the words gathered together the phrase is συνήχθησαν and its in the passive voice, they were being acted upon, by the Power and Sovereign decree of God. This certainly implies that their minds and hearts were being conformed to think and do that which would bring about Gods desired results, which was to crucify Christ, for the time had finally arrived !
 
Top