Well done, JB. But given that the following is not understood:

"If only A can happen, we cannot do B."

good luck with what you wrote being understood.

Here we are on page 14, and I still haven't gotten an answer to my original post. I'll excerpt a portion:



Given a) and b) are true, doesn't it follow that there is a contradiction here? If not, why not? (Please don't change the assumptions, as my question assumes the assumptions are true. Actually, go ahead an change the assumptions if desired, but please do so *after* answering the question if these two assumptions, a) and b), are contradictory.

MM: Are you suggesting Sister White said if Jesus had failed He would have remained in the tomb for eternity?

TE: Yes.

MM: Interesting? Please share the quote. Thank you.

…………………………

MM: What is the context of “A”? Does it represent what will happen in the future? If so, then what does “B” have to do with it?

TE: The context is as explained from the very first post of this topic. Just re-read the first post.


MM: Again, what is the context? Why is it that only “A” can happen? How did we come by such knowledge?

………………………….

TE: How is my saying that you say that only A can occur misrepresenting your view? It's just what you said!

MM: That’s not what I believe. Again, just because “A” happens, it does not mean “B” was an impossibility. Just because God reports that “A” happened, it does not mean “B” was an impossibility. That is, it does not mean we lacked the ability or freedom to choose differently.

TE: This is an interesting theory, which we can discuss later, but to be clear, I didn't say you said B was an impossibility. I said you said A was a certainty, which you did say. I did not mispresent your view.

MM: Here is what you said:


MM: I never said we “do not have the ability to do anything other than A.” The fact we will not do “B” has nothing to do with it being an impossibility. In other words, we possess the ability and freedom to do “B”, but we will not do it. Instead, we will do “A”. Do we know in advance what we will do? Unless God reveals it to us, we have no idea what we will and will not do before we do it. Only God knows the future like history, like a rerun.

…………………………..

TE: If there is no such thing as B, then only A can happen, right? How is this misrepresenting your view?

MM: Again, I’m talking about what has happened, not what might happen. “A” is what happened. “B” is what could have happened, but didn’t. Thus, when talking about what did happen, “B” does not enter the discussion. When discussing things before they happen, we cannot divorce God from the discussion. Only God knows what happened before it happens.

TE: I didn't say you said anything about B. Please re-read what I said again.

MM: Again, here is what you said:



MM: Since you said I said “we cannot do B” it seemed necessary to make it clear I do not believe it.

.......................

TE: At some point you might wish to deal with the original question of this topic, which has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge. It simply states that if only A can happen (your words!) and not B, then our definition of free will should address this fact. A person cannot do B (assuming A and B are mutually exclusive) if A must happen. How could this not be true?

MM: It is true that I was willing to go along with your original equation by agreeing with it, which, against my wishes, divorced God from the picture. And then, without fair warning, you accused me of insisting on something I don’t believe.

Again, it is imperative to understand how and why we know in advance that “A” will happen and not “B”. What is the basis of our knowledge of the future? Answering these questions will help us understand the truth about the future and the role free will plays.

The definition of free will, as I understand it, is that we possess the ability and freedom to do as we please. In reality, though, we are conceived and born in sin. Thus, we are naturally, instinctively the slaves and servants of sin, self, and Satan. Separated from Jesus, we “can do nothing but evil.” (3SM 196)

Consequently, our options are really only one – choose Jesus. If we do not choose Jesus, we are, by default, lost and unable to be like Him. Our only true option is to choose to be born again and to abide in Jesus. The results are twofold: 1) we will not sin, and 2) we will mature in the fruits of the Spirit, we will become more and more like Jesus.

Nevertheless, being born again and abiding in Jesus does not mean we lose the ability and freedom to sin. In fact, we are not truly free to sin until we are free from sin. However, and praise the Lord, so long as we are abiding in Jesus, we will not sin, we will be like Him.

To commit a known sin, therefore, we must neglect to consciously choose to abide in Jesus. If we are not, even for a nanosecond, abiding in Jesus - we will sin. Separated from Jesus, all we can do is sin.

Of course, repentance restores the relationship our sin severed. God does not abandon us. We don’t stop being born again. The Holy Spirit woos us until He wins us. Then we resume abiding in Jesus. So long as we are walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, so long as we are partaking of the divine nature, so long as we are abiding in Jesus - we are maturing in the fruits of the Spirit.

MM: Are you suggesting Sister White said if Jesus had failed He would have remained in the tomb for eternity?

TE: Yes.

MM: Interesting? Please share the quote. Thank you.

I couldn't find it. It said something like if Jesus had sinned, the stone would never have been removed from the tomb. I'm quite sure it's not in the Desire of Ages (which isn't very helpful, I know).
…………………………

MM: What is the context of “A”? Does it represent what will happen in the future? If so, then what does “B” have to do with it?

TE: The context is as explained from the very first post of this topic. Just re-read the first post.

Quote:
a) A person has free will if he can, at a given point in time, do either of acts A or B (where B is different than A).

b) Only event A can happen at the given point in time.

MM: Again, what is the context? Why is it that only “A” can happen? How did we come by such knowledge?

For the purpose of my question, it doesn't matter. Why only A can happen isn't important. *That* only A can is all that's necessary to respond to my point. Now whether or not some pre-condition implies that A must happen can be discussed at a future time, but why A must happen in no way affects the logic that *if* A must happen, then certain conclusions follow.

………………………….

TE: How is my saying that you say that only A can occur misrepresenting your view? It's just what you said!

MM: That’s not what I believe. Again, just because “A” happens, it does not mean “B” was an impossibility.

As I've stated twice, I didn't say anything about B in regards to your view. Only A.

Just because God reports that “A” happened, it does not mean “B” was an impossibility. That is, it does not mean we lacked the ability or freedom to choose differently.

TE: This is an interesting theory, which we can discuss later, but to be clear, I didn't say you said B was an impossibility. I said you said A was a certainty, which you did say. I did not mispresent your view.

MM: Here is what you said:

Quote:
If only A can happen, as MM is insisting, then we cannot do B. We do not have the ability to do anything other than A.

The "as MM is insisting" applies to "If only A can happen,"

MM: I never said we “do not have the ability to do anything other than A.”

I said that! You said that only A can happen.

The fact we will not do “B” has nothing to do with it being an impossibility.

The fact that B cannot happen has to do with it being an impossibility.

In other words, we possess the ability and freedom to do “B”, but we will not do it.

If B cannot happen, we cannot do it.

Instead, we will do “A”. Do we know in advance what we will do? Unless God reveals it to us, we have no idea what we will and will not do before we do it. Only God knows the future like history, like a rerun.

…………………………..

TE: If there is no such thing as B, then only A can happen, right? How is this misrepresenting your view?

MM: Again, I’m talking about what has happened, not what might happen. “A” is what happened. “B” is what could have happened, but didn’t. Thus, when talking about what did happen, “B” does not enter the discussion. When discussing things before they happen, we cannot divorce God from the discussion. Only God knows what happened before it happens.

TE: I didn't say you said anything about B. Please re-read what I said again.

MM: Again, here is what you said:

Quote:
If only A can happen, as MM is insisting, then we cannot do B. We do not have the ability to do anything other than A.


MM: Since you said I said “we cannot do B” it seemed necessary to make it clear I do not believe it.

No, I didn't say that. I said that you said only A can happen. I can see how you could misread what I wrote, but the "as MM is insisting" is only in reference to "If only A can happen".

.......................

TE: At some point you might wish to deal with the original question of this topic, which has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge. It simply states that if only A can happen (your words!) and not B, then our definition of free will should address this fact. A person cannot do B (assuming A and B are mutually exclusive) if A must happen. How could this not be true?

MM: It is true that I was willing to go along with your original equation by agreeing with it, which, against my wishes, divorced God from the picture. And then, without fair warning, you accused me of insisting on something I don’t believe.

No, you just misunderstood what I wrote.

Again, it is imperative to understand how and why we know in advance that “A” will happen and not “B”. What is the basis of our knowledge of the future? Answering these questions will help us understand the truth about the future and the role free will plays.

This doesn't change the logic in any way. We can deal with that after we've dealt with the logic. If you think the logic does change, then postulate the scenarios in which the logic changes and explain why it changes.

The definition of free will, as I understand it, is that we possess the ability and freedom to do as we please.

This is the compatibilistic definition of free will, which the Calvinsits use. This definition is logically consistent with the concept of God's foreknowledge that you hold. So you are holding to a logically consistent system of thought. (this sure took a long time to get to!).

What I suggested was a different definition for free will (referred to as "incompatibilisitic" or "libertarian" free will, which is what Armenianists use, of which SDA's are by tradition). The libertarian definition of free will is not that we have the ability to do as we please, but that we are able to choose and actually different things, which may or may not please us. For example:



You will notice that I defined free will differently than what you suggested. I wrote:



This is saying more than a person can do what he pleases. It is saying that he has the ability to actually do either of mutually exclusive acts, regardless of what he pleases. This definition requires that there actually be more than one event which can happen; your definition does not. In your defintion, only A needs to be possible, given that A is what the person wishes to do.

In reality, though, we are conceived and born in sin. Thus, we are naturally, instinctively the slaves and servants of sin, self, and Satan. Separated from Jesus, we “can do nothing but evil.” (3SM 196)

Consequently, our options are really only one – choose Jesus.

This is consistent with the Calvinistic viewpoint, and consistent with the compatibilistic definition which you gave above.

(snip)

JB: You profess to know something that you profess you cannot know! Another contradiction!

MM: Knowing what I don’t know doesn’t mean I know it!

TV: Why? Is God lacking in freedom or in morality that He misses out on being a FMA?

MM: For whom is God an agent?

TV: Since you said God doesnt judge. And if He doesnt judge, well... bye bye judgement...

MM: I qualified what I meant. God is judge in the sense He rewards us according to our self-judgment. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

TV: And I say that if in Gods perspective it has happened already, neither He nor we do anything at all but what fate has portioned out to us.

MM: What makes it “fate”? Is it “fate” when a historian records what happened? Does it mean the characters he wrote about can only do what he penned?

TV: Correction, Divorcing the false image of God (who He is) presented above from this discussion makes it pointless.

MM: And divorcing the correct image of God from this discussion is pointless, too.

JB: You see that the moment God would ever think to consider; his knowledge would already tell him that he has considered it.

MM: John, I do not pretend to be able to explain or understand how God knows the future like history, like a rerun. I just know He does. Unconditional prophecy is evidence of it. Neither do I understand how God can be everywhere at once. I just know that He is. I do not have to be able to explain to believe it.

JB: The knowledge is unalterable; yet the things it says have never transpired and never can transpire because the holder of this knowledge can never do the things the knowledge says he does.

MM: Does this apply to unconditional prophecy, too? That is, did Esau and Cyrus have a choice? Did knowing the future prevent them from doing it? If you answer, No, then is it appropriate to assume God cannot know the future because it would prevent Him from doing it?

John's not asking you to explain how God does anything. He's pointing out a logical problem with your viewpoint, which is that God cannot consider or judge.

And John is correct. This aspect of God is recognized by Calvinists, who are logically consistent in their viewpoint.

TV: Why? Is God lacking in freedom or in morality that He misses out on being a FMA?

MM: For whom is God an agent?

Thomas: For Himself.

Main Entry: agent
Pronunciation: 'A-j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin agent-, agens, from Latin, present participle of agere to drive, lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, lead
1 : one that acts or exerts power
2 a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle
3 : a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result
4 : one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: as a : a representative, emissary, or official of a government <crown agent> <federal agent> b : one engaged in undercover activities (as espionage) : SPY <secret agent> c : a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer) <a theatrical agent>

TV: Since you said God doesnt judge. And if He doesnt judge, well... bye bye judgement...

MM: I qualified what I meant. God is judge in the sense He rewards us according to our self-judgment. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

Thomas: Our self judgement? Then we are all dead.

TV: And I say that if in Gods perspective it has happened already, neither He nor we do anything at all but what fate has portioned out to us.

MM: What makes it “fate”? Is it “fate” when a historian records what happened? Does it mean the characters he wrote about can only do what he penned?

Thomas: It is fate since it has no FMA author/actor involved. (Including God as a FMA).
That the characters written about can only do what He penned is one of the fundamentals of your argumentation thus far.

Calvinistic free will, we choose to do what pleases us.

Arminian free will, we may choose to do something wether it pleases us or not.

A person detests even the smell of garlic. In the arminian view, this person can choose to eat the garlic despite finding it utterly revolting. What about the calvinistic view?