Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

[Arial]

@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.....

I questioned the board it was in the first one he posted, asking him why it was in Bible Questions if he wasn't actually going to discuss the Bible. I haven't paid attention to what board the others are in. I will try to find an appropriate board to move them to. It seems like he is unable to discuss anything of the Bible except in reference to his first logic conclusions, and expects everyone else to follow his format. A severe case of tunnel vision?




I moved all of them to Other Topics/Questions

 

[Arial]

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.

He used the example of the freewill offering in conjunction with the free will argument (and not stating what specifically he meant by that. But the freewill offering in the OT has nothing to do with our will being free. It simply means it was not a mandatory offering according to the Mosaic Law, but still had to be offered in compliance with how God said to offer it. And I pointed out to him, with no response, that our will, our choice is not once mentioned in connection with faith in Christ, repentance, or belief. Which is what is usually the issue in a soteriology

 

[Josheb]

I questioned the board it was in the first one he posted, asking him why it was in Bible Questions if he wasn't actually going to discuss the Bible. I haven't paid attention to what board the others are in. I will try to find an appropriate board to move them to. It seems like he is unable to discuss anything of the Bible except in reference to his first logic conclusions, and expects everyone else to follow his format.

I don't want to digress far afield of the op but I have my style and you have yours. @TonyChanYT seems to think of himself as a teacher (not a student), one who distributes information as he sees fit (it is certainly not the Spirit inspiring some of these ops) for the purpose of teaching those with an interest and those with questions, comments (or corrections) post outside his purpose. Discussions are considered debates and there's little desire to debate. Correction is something existing on the other side of the horizon. As I said, he does this in multiple forums, not just CCAM. There's very little discourse, if any, in any of those forums.

A severe case of tunnel vision?

Perhaps, but definitely a single-minded intent that can be considered admirable. I have yet to see him goaded into anything he does not want to engage.

I moved all of them to Other Topics/Questions

Yep

Now.... back to the fray!

 

[Josheb]

He used the example of the freewill offering in conjunction with the free will argument (and not stating what specifically he meant by that. But the freewill offering in the OT has nothing to do with our will being free. It simply means it was not a mandatory offering according to the Mosaic Law, but still had to be offered in compliance with how God said to offer it. And I pointed out to him, with no response, that our will, our choice is not once mentioned in connection with faith in Christ, repentance, or belief. Which is what is usually the issue in a soteriology

Yep

That is all readily and easily verifiable with a little investigation into scripture and, if other posts of his are an indication, then he possesses the skills to do so (and should have done so before posting this op). At this point the opportunity to do so has availed itself and we're all waiting for confirmation of the facts in evidence.

As far as the op's desire for predicate logic goes, strict determinism and unfettered autonomy are both extremes, and arguments based on the poles are never logical. In an op asking for the reader to apply predicate logic the op has violated its own rule(s) with that comment about determinism and no definition of "freewill". Something in the middle needs to be established and, imo, the onus is first his, not the readers'.

 

[Arial]

Yep

That is all readily and easily verifiable with a little investigation into scripture and, if other posts of his are an indication, then he possesses the skills to do so (and should have done so before posting this op). At this point the opportunity to do so has availed itself and we're all waiting for confirmation of the facts in evidence.

As far as the op's desire for predicate logic goes, strict determinism and unfettered autonomy are both extremes, and arguments based on the poles are never logical. In an op asking for the reader to apply predicate logic the op has violated its own rule(s) with that comment about determinism and no definition of "freewill". Something in the middle needs to be established and, imo, the onus is first his, not the readers'.

P.S. I like it when we get along.

 

[fastfredy0]

Our Free Will is nothing?

Before creation there was nothing but God. Before creation our free will did not exist; it was nothing so to speak. Since even God does not know what nothing will do and our free will did not exist before creation God's knowledge of the future (what you will do) must be determined by God and not self-determined by man which is the definition of "free will".