Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

[TonyChanYT]

If you think there is a First-Order Logical contradiction, please present the two propositions that directly contradict. Please clearly state the two contradictory propositions and nothing else. Fill in the blanks:

Proposition P1 = ________.

Freewill proposition P2 = ________.

P1 should be a proposition related to Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, or Determinism.

P2 should be a proposition related to Freewill.

Let me explain my motivation. In this thread, I attempt a bottom-up approach to confronting this controversial issue that has existed for centuries and millenniums. I want debaters to begin with a clear goal (proposition) in mind.

An argument begins with propositions. Without them, there is no formal argument and nothing to argue about. This is my only point in this thread.

I do not hope to resolve the controversy. Some people like to argue to show that he is right. My only hope is to get debaters to be more goal-oriented in their debates. Without this guiding structure (proposition), they tend to talk past each other without communicating useful information in their bickering. That's why I stress the discipline and precision offered in First-Order Logic. If the debaters stick to the syntax of FOL, there would not be much to argue about.

My position is this: I prefer to argue about terms/words written in the Bible. Since Determinism is not, I would rather not argue about that.

See also What is freewill?.

 

[CrowCross]

If you think there is a First-Order Logical contradiction, please present the two propositions that directly contradict. Please clearly state the two contradictory propositions and nothing else. Fill in the blanks:

Proposition P1 = ________.

Freewill proposition P2 = ________.

P1 should be a proposition related to Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, or Determinism.

P2 should be a proposition related to Freewill.

Let me explain my motivation. In this thread, I attempt a bottom-up approach to confronting this controversial issue that has existed for centuries and millenniums. I want debaters to begin with a clear goal (proposition) in mind.

An argument begins with propositions. Without them, there is no formal argument and nothing to argue about. This is my only point in this thread.

I do not hope to resolve the controversy. Some people like to argue to show that he is right. My only hope is to get debaters to be more goal-oriented in their debates. Without this guiding structure (proposition), they tend to talk past each other without communicating useful information in their bickering. That's why I stress the discipline and precision offered in First-Order Logic. If the debaters stick to the syntax of FOL, there would not be much to argue about.

My position is this: I prefer to argue about terms/words written in the Bible. Since Determinism is not, I would rather not argue about that.

See also What is freewill?.

Which "free-will" are you taking about?

Our free-will to choose a blue shirt over a red shirt or buy a Chevy instead of a Ford? To take the jab or not despite the enormous loss they would render upon themselves if they didn't....or....the free-will to "choose" Jesus and obtain eternal life?
Just for the record, considering you like terms/words written in the Bible....does the bible tell us anywhere that we have to "choose Jesus" or does the bible tell us God the Father "chooses" us?

 

[Arial]

Let me explain my motivation. In this thread, I attempt a bottom-up approach to confronting this controversial issue that has existed for centuries and millenniums. I want debaters to begin with a clear goal (proposition) in mind.

Thanks for clearing that up. That is all I was asking for when I said I was unclear about your intent. There was no inference or implication of ulterior motives by me, as another person accused me of.

My only hope is to get debaters to be more goal-oriented in their debates. Without this guiding structure (proposition), they tend to talk past each other without communicating useful information in their bickering. That's why I stress the discipline and precision offered in First-Order Logic. If the debaters stick to the syntax of FOL, there would not be much to argue about.

I respect the effort of trying to get people to focus and debate without fallacies. There have been posters attempting to do that since forums began, to no avail. Your method is not likely to be any more successful. Mainly because, as you said, a great many people are simply right fighting and have no intention of listening. But by all means, continue. Men plant the seeds, God does the growing.

Another reason for the lack of focus and the fact that most of these "debates" are not actual debates or even conversations, is because opposites can not both be correct. And the theological, ontological, soteriological, truth is found in the Bible as absolutes. No matter how someone may interpret them, their meaning remains absolute. One side of the OP question can be proven by proper use of Bible hermeneutics, exegesis, exposition, keeping all things consistent, and primarily consistent with who God reveals Himself to be and who He reveals Christ to be and to do. The other side cannot, so it has to ignore or alter all evidence given.

My position is this: I prefer to argue about terms/words written in the Bible. Since Determinism is not, I would rather not argue about that.

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill. If I am not mistaken the words omnipotent and omniscient are not in the Bible either, though the declaration of both those things is. Free will is never used in conjunction with believing or faith in Christ. There are many forms of the term free will among individuals who say we have it, so it needs to be defined as to how a person using it is using it. Determinism is a separate debate within the Reformed community that does not necessarily relate to the omni's or predestination. How far do you want to go into the various aspects?

Are you willing to debate the issues as to solving apparent contradictions without the other person using the FOL formula in formula form?

 

[fastfredy0]

Premise 1: God is all knowing and does not change
Premise 2: From nothing, nothing comes. (You cannot know what nothing will do)
Premise 3: Before creation only God existed (nothing else)
Premise 4: Free will is defined as the man's ability to self determine whether to believe salvificly or not
Premise 5: No one has counselled God. Isaiah 40:13 Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, Or has taught Him as His counselor?
Conclusion: God's knowledge does not change and He has always known every person who would come to have salvific faith. Therefore, God must determine it as there was no other source of knowledge before creation (i.e. Free Will)

Premise 1: One must believe in Christ to be saved
Premise 2: Billions of people have died in last 2000 year without any knowledge of Christ
Premise 3 Free will is defined as the man's ability to self determine whether to believe salvificly or not
Conclusion: It is/was impossible for Free Will to exist in such people

God cannot know from us what we will choose from man before man existed. What we see, and what we are, must arise from itself or some other; it cannot from itself: if anything made itself, it had a power to make itself; it then had an active power before it had a being; it was something in regard of power, and was nothing in regard of existence at the same time. Suppose it had a power to produce itself, this power must be conferred upon it by another; and so the power of producing itself, was not from itself, but from another. Stephen Charnock - The existence and Attributes of God
All change is finished in time, one moment preceding, another moment following; but that which is before time cannot be changed by time. Thus knowledge cannot be acquired from man in regards to ‘free will’. For God cannot be eternally what he was; that is, he cannot have a true eternity, if he had a new knowledge, a new purpose, a new essence; if he were sometimes this and sometimes that, sometimes know ‘this’ and sometimes know ‘that’, sometimes purpose this and afterwards hath a new purpose; he would be partly temporary and partly eternal, not truly and universally eternal, he that hath anything of newness, hath not properly and truly an entire eternity. Stephen Charnock - The existence and Attributes of God
God’s freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases. This definition implies that nothing in all creation can hinder God from doing his will. God’s liberty of action (freedom) would be limited by the assumed powers and prerogatives of man’s “free will”.
Can God be pleased/glorified with anything which does not have its origin in Himself? If “free will” be an actuality, then God is not glorified by the salvation of individuals that He foreknew for He had no purpose for that individual’s decision. This contradicts Ephesians 1:11, Isaiah 42:8b My glory I will not give to another

Romans 11:35 Who has first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?". His meaning obviously is, that men are altogether indebted to the preventing goodness of God, there being nothing in them, either past or future, to conciliate his favor. The force of this is, it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligations to the creature; God gains nothing from us which harmonizes with His immutability.
The idea of ‘free will’ contradicts the observable fact the people’s beliefs correlate to the beliefs of their parents in a way that indisputably show one’s parents are an critical influence. (you can google for data)
Yada, yada ...

 

[TonyChanYT]

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill. If I am not mistaken the words omnipotent and omniscient are not in the Bible either,

Right. I would ask for definitions before debating.

Determinism is a separate debate within the Reformed community that does not necessarily relate to the omni's or predestination. How far do you want to go into the various aspects?

as long as the other guy and I are communicating. When the communication fails, there is no reason for me to continue.

Are you willing to debate the issues as to solving apparent contradictions without the other person using the FOL formula in formula form?

Yes, but only to the extent that the communication is profitable. I avoid formalism myself until it is necessary to use it to clarify.

 

[Arial]

Right. I would ask for definitions before debating.

Omnipotent as applied to God: He is the one true and living God who created all that is. He alone creates out of nothing but His will, creates it for His purpose and glory, and good pleasure. He alone governs all His creation, holds it together, has the power to do so. He alone is free. All else is dependant upon Him, His mercy, His faithfulness, His perfection, and subject to Him. The animal kingdom is so through instinct that is a part of their created nature.

This is the very point God was making with Moses when He said "Tell them I AM has sent you." He was contrasting Himself with the many impotent gods who could do nothing, that the descendants of Abraham had been living among for over four hundred years. He would demonstrate His omnipotence over all creation through His actions.

Humanity is the only being increation that is made in His image and likeness. As such he is similar to God in many ways, but exactly like Him in no way. We were created to bear this image and likeness in all our ways, and were given the meditorial role of caring for creation. All this is seen in Gen 1-2.

We were created having a will, just as our Creator has a will, but our will is always and everywhere subject to His will. It was free only in the sense that we were given the ability of choice to obey or disobey. But even so, our will was not free in that our choices are always motivated. Our will is acted upon by our desires. And in Adam and Eve's fall our will became a captive of sin. Inescapable bondage, but for Christ. (Romans 6:15-18; Col 1:13-14)

Omniscience: God knows all things that take place in time because He is outside of time and made all that is made. He has all information and knowledge because He is the source of all information and knowledge. There is no information or knowledge that exists outside of His information or knowledge. We, on the other hand, only know things and discover things because He makes them known to us.

Predestination: God knows who He will give to Christ (John 6) before He creates them. I believe He creates them to belong to Christ, and they are predestined by His power and His grace, to be placed in Christ through faith. I can give scriptures for this if asked, but it is absolutely consistent with God as He reveals Himself. Sovereign over what He has made.

Freewill: Usually that is used to say that man can (is able to) choose Christ and must choose Him in order to be saved. Some say that through the cross enough grace is given to all without exception to make that choice, pro or con. Some say we have that ability without grace. It is impossible for God to be omnipotent and omniscient and at the same time for man, who is dead in trespasses and sin, to desire what he hates. The Bible declares him to be both dead in sin, and at enmity with God. Scripture tells us that it is God who quickens this man to life and gives him to the Son. (Eph 2; John 6; John 10)

And if God gives everyone enough understanding, grace, to choose or not choose Christ, then His death was largely ineffectual in doing what it is said to have done. That is utterly inconsistent with an omnipotent God. In addition, our will in choosing is never once mentioned in connection with saving faith. The argument is that it is implied when commands are given such as "repent" and "believe". But it is not. It is eisegesis based on a learned bias, and a failure to keep the whole counsel of God consistent.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Omnipotent as applied to God: He is the one true and living God who created all that is. He alone creates out of nothing but His will, creates it for His purpose and glory, and good pleasure. He alone governs all His creation, holds it together, has the power to do so. He alone is free. All else is dependant upon Him, His mercy, His faithfulness, His perfection, and subject to Him. The animal kingdom is so through instinct that is a part of their created nature.

This is the very point God was making with Moses when He said "Tell them I AM has sent you." He was contrasting Himself with the many impotent gods who could do nothing, that the descendants of Abraham had been living among for over four hundred years. He would demonstrate His omnipotence over all creation through His actions.

Humanity is the only being increation that is made in His image and likeness. As such he is similar to God in many ways, but exactly like Him in no way. We were created to bear this image and likeness in all our ways, and were given the meditorial role of caring for creation. All this is seen in Gen 1-2.

We were created having a will, just as our Creator has a will, but our will is always and everywhere subject to His will. It was free only in the sense that we were given the ability of choice to obey or disobey. But even so, our will was not free in that our choices are always motivated. Our will is acted upon by our desires. And in Adam and Eve's fall our will became a captive of sin. Inescapable bondage, but for Christ. (Romans 6:15-18; Col 1:13-14)

Omniscience: God knows all things that take place in time because He is outside of time and made all that is made. He has all information and knowledge because He is the source of all information and knowledge. There is no information or knowledge that exists outside of His information or knowledge. We, on the other hand, only know things and discover things because He makes them known to us.

Predestination: God knows who He will give to Christ (John 6) before He creates them. I believe He creates them to belong to Christ, and they are predestined by His power and His grace, to be placed in Christ through faith. I can give scriptures for this if asked, but it is absolutely consistent with God as He reveals Himself. Sovereign over what He has made.

Freewill: Usually that is used to say that man can (is able to) choose Christ and must choose Him in order to be saved. Some say that through the cross enough grace is given to all without exception to make that choice, pro or con. Some say we have that ability without grace. It is impossible for God to be omnipotent and omniscient and at the same time for man, who is dead in trespasses and sin, to desire what he hates. The Bible declares him to be both dead in sin, and at enmity with God. Scripture tells us that it is God who quickens this man to life and gives him to the Son. (Eph 2; John 6; John 10)

And if God gives everyone enough understanding, grace, to choose or not choose Christ, then His death was largely ineffectual in doing what it is said to have done. That is utterly inconsistent with an omnipotent God. In addition, our will in choosing is never once mentioned in connection with saving faith. The argument is that it is implied when commands are given such as "repent" and "believe". But it is not. It is eisegesis based on a learned bias, and a failure to keep the whole counsel of God consistent.

Do you have two propositions that contradict?

 

[TonyChanYT]

Premise 1: God is all knowing and does not change
Premise 2: From nothing, nothing comes. (You cannot know what nothing will do)
Premise 3: Before creation only God existed (nothing else)
Premise 4: Free will is defined as the man's ability to self determine whether to believe salvificly or not
Premise 5: No one has counselled God. Isaiah 40:13 Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, Or has taught Him as His counselor?
Conclusion: God's knowledge does not change and He has always known every person who would come to have salvific faith. Therefore, God must determine it as there was no other source of knowledge before creation (i.e. Free Will)

Premise 1: One must believe in Christ to be saved
Premise 2: Billions of people have died in last 2000 year without any knowledge of Christ
Premise 3 Free will is defined as the man's ability to self determine whether to believe salvificly or not
Conclusion: It is/was impossible for Free Will to exist in such people

God cannot know from us what we will choose from man before man existed. What we see, and what we are, must arise from itself or some other; it cannot from itself: if anything made itself, it had a power to make itself; it then had an active power before it had a being; it was something in regard of power, and was nothing in regard of existence at the same time. Suppose it had a power to produce itself, this power must be conferred upon it by another; and so the power of producing itself, was not from itself, but from another. Stephen Charnock - The existence and Attributes of God
All change is finished in time, one moment preceding, another moment following; but that which is before time cannot be changed by time. Thus knowledge cannot be acquired from man in regards to ‘free will’. For God cannot be eternally what he was; that is, he cannot have a true eternity, if he had a new knowledge, a new purpose, a new essence; if he were sometimes this and sometimes that, sometimes know ‘this’ and sometimes know ‘that’, sometimes purpose this and afterwards hath a new purpose; he would be partly temporary and partly eternal, not truly and universally eternal, he that hath anything of newness, hath not properly and truly an entire eternity. Stephen Charnock - The existence and Attributes of God
God’s freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases. This definition implies that nothing in all creation can hinder God from doing his will. God’s liberty of action (freedom) would be limited by the assumed powers and prerogatives of man’s “free will”.
Can God be pleased/glorified with anything which does not have its origin in Himself? If “free will” be an actuality, then God is not glorified by the salvation of individuals that He foreknew for He had no purpose for that individual’s decision. This contradicts Ephesians 1:11, Isaiah 42:8b My glory I will not give to another

Romans 11:35 Who has first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?". His meaning obviously is, that men are altogether indebted to the preventing goodness of God, there being nothing in them, either past or future, to conciliate his favor. The force of this is, it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligations to the creature; God gains nothing from us which harmonizes with His immutability.
The idea of ‘free will’ contradicts the observable fact the people’s beliefs correlate to the beliefs of their parents in a way that indisputably show one’s parents are an critical influence. (you can google for data)
Yada, yada ...

Do you have two propositions that contradict?

 

[Josheb]

If you think there is a First-Order Logical contradiction, please present the two propositions that directly contradict. Please clearly state the two contradictory propositions and nothing else. Fill in the blanks:

Proposition P1 = ________.

Freewill proposition P2 = ________.

P1 should be a proposition related to Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, or Determinism.

P2 should be a proposition related to Freewill.

Let me explain my motivation. In this thread, I attempt a bottom-up approach to confronting this controversial issue that has existed for centuries and millenniums. I want debaters to begin with a clear goal (proposition) in mind.

An argument begins with propositions. Without them, there is no formal argument and nothing to argue about. This is my only point in this thread.

I do not hope to resolve the controversy. Some people like to argue to show that he is right. My only hope is to get debaters to be more goal-oriented in their debates. Without this guiding structure (proposition), they tend to talk past each other without communicating useful information in their bickering. That's why I stress the discipline and precision offered in First-Order Logic. If the debaters stick to the syntax of FOL, there would not be much to argue about.

My position is this: I prefer to argue about terms/words written in the Bible. Since Determinism is not, I would rather not argue about that.

LOL! I will agree with you (strict) determinism is not in the Bible, not neither is free will. Btw, "freewill" is not the same as "free will." If you examine the Hebrew and Greek (since I know you've recently posted on the validity and efficacy of studying the original languages) this will become apparent.

See also What is freewill?.

Tony, that reddit post is laughably incorrect.

For one, a relative lack of consensus is irrelevant. It's worth noting but it does nothing to prove the veracity of any given position. Assuming that is relevant creates the logical fallacy known as "ad populum." Second, no one can have ontology absent definitions of the terms. You have got to define "free" and "will" as you understand it AND as you intend it to be used by others before any discussion of its nature can be had. Third, you've confused or conflated freewill with free will. Not only are failing to define terms and conflation a problem but they lead to fallacies of equivocation, like false equivalence and ambiguity. Fourth, the Bible does not assume freewill or free will. The Bible asserts a freewill (voluntary) offering without ever using the phrase "free will" or anywhere stating, "the sinner's will is free." What the Bible teaches is the sinner is dead in sin and thereby enslaved to sin. Most importantly, however, a link to a reddit post of your own making is not evidence of anything but your personal opinion. It proves nothing. It's a circular argument: I believe "X" and here's me expressing my opinion on "X" to prove what I said about "X" correct.

That is just nuts.

I've read you say you do not like to debate but 1) trying having a nice, polite, intelligent, and cogent conversation about this op, 2) be willing to re-consider your own views wherever others help you see the need, and 3) please, please, please provide some support for your views other than your own views on reddit.






I assume you have a software Bible in which you can do a word search quickly. If not then let us know and I'll adjust my posts accordingly. If so then, right now, do a word search for "free will" in both Old and New Testaments. Not "freewill," but "free will."

How many times does the phrase "free will" occur?

Now do the same with, "Choice OR choose".

How many times do the words "choice" or "choose" occur in the Bible?

Now do the same with "choose AND salvation".

How many times do the words "choose" and "salvation" occur together?


Let's start with the information gathered from just those three searches. Tell me your findings and we'll go from there.






Last question: What do you do if you ever discover something you taught in one of your posts is incorrect?


.

 

[fastfredy0]

Do you have two propositions that contradict?

God knows all things
God's information came from NOTHING as that is what our Free Will was when God knew ALL THINGS.

This is a contradiction as it is not possible to know what NOTHING WILL DO.
Aside: You did not define "free will" so your questioning is obtuse.

@Josheb has a better handle on your philosophical terminology ... I'll hand it over to him. *giggle*

 

[Arial]

Do you have two propositions that contradict?

Do you have anything to say about my post besides ask me for what you said you would not require? If you never actually respond to what is posted, how can there be a debate or discussion?
Free will contradicts God's omnipotence. It contradicts His omniscience. It contradicts predestination. All of which are biblically provable (and proven) truth.

 

[Arial]

Do you have two propositions that contradict?

So then, in contradiction of what you stated to me earlier, we cannot have a conversation about the actual issue unless your FOL is followed as a formal format.

FOL may be useful for some in validating or checking something, but it will never put anything into a person's heart. Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit----the One who interprets His word, first in our mind and from there into our hearts,--- FOL on its own just gives head knowledge, and it is not infallible. I am not saying that you do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, am not inferring it, am not implying it. I am making a point. FOL is not the first order of anything. God is. And without faith no amount of logic will save.

And in spite of your statement of intent, it seems this is not a theological discussion, a discussion of scripture, or in this case of the doctrines of grace as opposed to any and all free will positions, but a class on logic, in which you are trying to bend all posters into doing it your way. Now, I may be wrong, there is a high probability that I am, or that in your focus and enthusiasm for your craft, you are unaware of how impossible you are making a debate or discussion by simply asking questions like the above in response to most of the posts. We try to engage, and get cut off.

 

[TonyChanYT]

God's information came from NOTHING as that is what our Free Will was when God knew ALL THINGS.

Our Free Will is nothing?

 

[TonyChanYT]

we cannot have a conversation about the actual issue unless your FOL is followed as a formal format.

Are you familiar with FOL? BTW, I did not invent it.

 

[Arial]

Are you familiar with FOL? BTW, I did not invent it.

YES I AM. SO WHAT!! Are you ever going to have a conversation with anyone but yourself? Do you have anything to say that pertains to what people have posted?

 

[Josheb]

Our Free Will is nothing?

Whoa!

How is it now "free will" is posted instead of "freewill"?


Folks (@CrowCross, @Arial, @fastfredy0), don't let him get away with the unexplained and unjustified switch and don't collaborate unwittingly. He needs to acknowledge the difference and clarify the op accordingly. The op asserts free will exists based on the word "freewill," when "nedabah" does NOT mean "yənaqqeh" or "chophshi". Likewise, "nedabah," is NOT equivalent to the Greek "eleutheros" "thelematos" (free + will). Those two terms are NOT identical or synonymous and should not be confused, conflated, or interchanged. @TonyChanYT, please acknowledge these facts. Look them up and verify them. Then come back and confirm them.

It makes a difference. Any conversation of the conditions between strict determinism and unfettered autonomy must start with correct and sound definitions and not a one-sided baseless dismissal of one pole to imply or otherwise assert the other extreme's legitimacy.

 

[Josheb]

If the debaters stick to the syntax of FOL, there would not be much to argue about.

Are you familiar with FOL? BTW, I did not invent it.

Yes, @TonyChanYT, all of us currently in this thread are familiar predicate logic. The problem is this op isn't FOL. It's an abuse of first-order logic. How? It assumes positions not yet in evidence and does not state its givens, much less justify them.

You've got to back the whole truck up and correct your own premises before anyone will assert a logical syllogism based on the op's requirements. Until that happens the op is a red herring (something to be avoided, not treated as inherently valid and then discussed).

 

[CrowCross]

Whoa!

How is it now "free will" is posted instead of "freewill"?


Folks (@CrowCross, @Arial, @fastfredy0), don't let him get away with the unexplained and unjustified switch and don't collaborate unwittingly. He needs to acknowledge the difference and clarify the op accordingly. The op asserts free will exists based on the word "freewill," when "nedabah" does NOT mean "yənaqqeh" or "chophshi". Likewise, "nedabah," is NOT equivalent to the Greek "eleutheros" "thelematos" (free + will). Those two terms are NOT identical or synonymous and should not be confused, conflated, or interchanged. @TonyChanYT, please acknowledge these facts. Look them up and verify them. Then come back and confirm them.

It makes a difference. Any conversation of the conditions between strict determinism and unfettered autonomy must start with correct and sound definitions and not a one-sided baseless dismissal of one pole to imply or otherwise assert the other extreme's legitimacy.

TonyChanYT has already avoided my questions.​

 

[CrowCross]

Are you familiar with FOL? BTW, I did not invent it.

Why should I care about FOL? Did Jesus teach it? Did the Bereans use it?

 

[Josheb]

.........Are you ever going to have a conversation with anyone but yourself? Do you have anything to say that pertains to what people have posted?

@TonyChanYT has already avoided my questions.

@TonyChanYT is apprehensive about discussing his views. I've tried to engage him in other forums, offering affirmation and support where I can, but rarely seen him reply in any discussion-furthering manner and never at length. I'm hoping CCAM will be different, but expectations are low. Let's face it, most discussion board are vigorous at best and rancorous at worse and this thread is supposed to be a Bible Study (although I question the use of this board for this op, given the lack of Bible in the study ). He also posts daily in multiple boards so he's busy . A half-dozen posts may be all we get. Accountability is tough sometimes. For example.....

Right. I would ask for definitions before debating.

Then start with the op!!!

• Define "freewill" and explain if and how it is different from "free will."
• Define "free".
• Define "will".
• Define "determinism".
• Define "omnipotent".
• Define "omniscient".
• Define "predestination".

Define them in a manner that is correct, and functional, and so others understand how the terms are to be used in this discussion. Don't assume what should first be defined or explained. FOL requires it. Most of those terms are not well understood and predestination is going to have hugely different meaning for monergists than synergists (and perhaps for Covenantalists versus Dispensationalists).

Right. I would ask for definitions before debating.

I, for one, would ask you to do the same with this op, especially if the purpose is to apply FOL.