The E.O. view is very similar to the Arminian one.Yes, we know. Another reason Arminians should reconsider their theological position.
LFW is free will.Says who? Other than demonstrating that he can capitalize and press the "Enter" key, JNorm has done nothing to make his case. His original complaint was that Calvinists do not affirm "free will." No, we don't affirm LFW. So, he resorts to truth by definition. That's very mature.
LFW = Free WILL
and yes, I have read the WFC.Aside from showing us he's not the best speller, JNorm has done nothing to demonstrate the case. I look forward to his take on Frankfurt experiments in relationship to freedom and responsibility.
Hard Determinism and Combatabilsim is not free will.
God forcing an "internal" desire on someone is not free will....especially if that "internal" desire is irresistible.Aside from misrepresenting the opposing position by resorting to caricaturing it, JNorm has done nothing to demonstrate that Calvinists affirm forces an internal desire on someone.
Does the pottery have a right to complain to the Potter? According to JNorm, the answer must be "yes."
LFW reduces to the notion that our choices have no causes. This is irrational. It is therefore not free will in the ordinarily understood sense.
To quote Turretinfan:
Taking a page or two from Edwards, we can simply point out that a will that acts contingently (a "libertarian" will) cannot be a will that is determined. Yet, wills in Scripture are determined, as are choices. A will whose acts are not determined by the person whose will it is, is a monstrosity that would destroy our intuition of what is required for moral responsibility. Finally, we can see evidence in Sociology, Psychology, and the like that people's wills are determined. The advertising industry is built on the fact that people are largely predictable in their behavior. Scripture confirms that man's acts are determined - comparing man's acts to the fruit of a tree.I'm sure Manata and Pike will have a field day with you, but even so, I'll ask you some questions:
Furthermore, Scripture is clear that creation is dependent for everything - even its very existence - on the Creator. Accordingly, to assert that something could come to be without its ultimate source being God is contrary to Scripture. In Him we live and move and have our being, as even the pagans recognized.
1. If Agent A's desires are sufficient causes for their actions, is this "free will?" If not, why not? If so, then why the objection to compatibilism?
2. Where, pray tell, does Scripture teach LFW?
3. If the Bible doesn't teach it, then from whence does it come?
4. If it doesn't teach it, why should we believe in it?
5. You've asserted the Fathers all believed in LFW. (Turretinfan and I both take exception to that assertion, but I'll concede that for the purposes of this question). If it isn't an action theory not taught by Scripture, then where did they get that idea, assuming that they all believed in it?