So everyone ends up doing what they wish, and the saved people wish to do Gods will while the lost wish to do evil, and so Gods predestination is fullfilled...

Yes, that's the idea. This way the Calvinist's avoid the contradiction that is coming up here. God's foreknowledge (as defined in this thread, which is the same as Calvinist's define it) implies that a person can only do A if God sees him doing A. This isn't a problem, logically, for the Calvinist's in terms of free will because they understand that free will means that you can do what you want to do.

The contradiction that's coming up here is that if God the fact that God sees that A will happen means that A must happen, then a person cannot do B, which kills the definition of free will which says that the person with free will can do either A or B.

TE: Why? I'm just trying to explain things in a step by step way that can be understood.

MM: I know. That's part of the problem. Your goal is teach and to persuade - not to be a learner, a fellow Bible student. Thus, when things do not progress according to your plan you are quick to point it out. Also, your tendency to critique and label things as either "irrelevant" or "illogical" is wearisome. It would certainly make things a lot nicer for me if you would simply share what makes sense to you without finding fault with what others share.

Explain what? What are you trying to explain, and why do you feel the need to try and explain it? I have no idea what you are talking about personally, and I see that you skipped a whole lot of information as to what you perceive by using words like:
"compatible free will" and "determinism".

What are those words? Why should I care? Why should anyone care for that matter? What does it mean to you,
Where do you stand on whatever it is the foundation you are trying to lay?
God Bless,
Will

MM, I apologize. How should I make the points in a way which is not offensive? You saw the quote from the Spirit of Prophecy, which points out how important sound arguments are, correct? Tell me what language you'd like me to use when I perceive an argument is not sound because either it's not addressing the point under consideration or because it's illogical, and I'll be happy to use that language.

I'm sorry again if I wrote anything that was personally upsetting. I'm not wishing to say anything about you personally, only your argument. Guide me in the language you'd like me to use, and I'll go along with that.

Thanks.

Will, have you been following the conditional prophecy thread? This is a spin-off from that.

Regarding where I stand on the issue I've been speaking about, I don't believe the future is fixed; I believe it's open. That is, the future is comprised, at least in part, of possibilities until we as self-determining agents act upon the choices that we have.

As to why it's important, it provides a framework to answer such questions as, if God knew Lucifer was going to sin, why did He create him.

As to the what, the what is that the idea that the future is fixed is logically mutually exclusive to the idea that we have free will, if free will is understood to mean the ability to effect either of alternative actions at a given time.

Does that help, Will? You're jumping right in the middle, which makes it a bit difficult to respond to your concerns. Please let me know if this was an adequate answer.

I think this was out of line. Who set you to be judge over my motives?

But since you've commented, I'll tell you. I have no asperations of being able to persuade you of anything. In the three years or so since we've been discussing things, I can't think of anything I've persuaded you of, so it would be delusional of me to expect that I would be able to do so now in this thread, wouldn't it? If my goal were to teach or persuade, I would be better off elsewhere, wouldn't I?

No, MM, my goal is to learn, and I've learned a lot while participating on this forum. As long as I continue to learn and am welcome here, I'll continue to participate.

Now if my tone is off, then you are free, and encouraged, to comment about that, but I don't think you have any call to pontificate about my motives, do you?

TE: Guide me in the language you'd like me to use, and I'll go along with that.

MM: "... your tendency to critique and label things as either "irrelevant" or "illogical" is wearisome. It would certainly make things a lot nicer for me if you would simply share what makes sense to you without finding fault with what others share."

TE: Now if my tone is off, then you are free, and encouraged, to comment about that, but I don't think you have any call to pontificate about my motives, do you?

MM: "Your goal is teach and to persuade - not to be a learner, a fellow Bible student. Thus, when things do not progress according to your plan you are quick to point it out."

Oops! I forgot to add "it seems to me that your goal is ..." Sorry about that. Again, it would makes things a lot nicer for me if you would simply share your thoughts without finding fault with what others share.

Labeling what others share as "irrelevant" or "illogical" does not encourage dialogue. Nor does it sound kind and loving. It also comes across, to me, as controlling and insensitive. It makes it seem like you have an agenda and that you are unwilling to allow anyone to derail it.

A little bit, not a whole lot, but enough to see a few things there, which prompted me to ask you the questions I did.



I don't agree, but thats Ok. I believe that God knows the end from the beginning, its very simple for me.



Thats easy. God gives everyone a choice. Your decision will affect the outcome either good or bad.



Is that God talk or man talk? Sounds like man talk to me.



It helps. If I have more questions I'll ask
God Bless & Happy Sabbath,
Will

MM, you're not offering any help on what words you'd like me to choose. I'm labeling the elements of your arguments. It's not personal. I'm not labeling you in any way. If you present an argument which is unsound, how should I regard it? How about "unsound"?

You're suggesting that I share what I think without labeling your arguments, but I have to respond to the argument in some way. Would you prefer it if I just said, "I disagree. This is why."? Or would you prefer that I not respond to your arguments at all, and just share what I think as if I hadn't read what you wrote?

I'm not sure what you're wanting MM. Please elaborate, and I'll try to go along with your wishes.

Thanks.