David Hewitt
1.8K posts
@HewittRincrast
One of two pastors at Aletheia Church, Indianapolis, IN. Husband of one, father of five, grandfather of two. aka the Amateur Reformed Apologist (#ARAp)
Compatibilism isn’t the problem. The problem is: Compatibilism Ends Up The Same IF we use High Calvinism Granting Free Will to the High Calvinist doesn’t help him because Adam’s Act of Sin is still [Necessary-Act] which is why it cannot be otherwise and such Necessity is Absolute as it is born of Sovereignty vis-à-vis Decree. We END UP with the following terminus: Necessity Born of Sovereign Decree: ▪️Absolutely Unnecessary (Free) Act by Adam —&— ▪️Absolutely Necessary Fall by Adam Most High Calvinists differ only in their claim that Unnecessary (Free) Act (“LFW” if it helps) is a metaphysical impossibility, but the Net/Sum is the same EVEN if we “grant” it to High Calvinism. To justify that further *Recall* the following: We all know/agree that Necessity is Absolute as it is born of Sovereignty vis-à-vis Decree. So then: A High Calvinist makes the following claim: “But in your system God has Foreknowledge so God is ALSO RESPONSIBLE for causing evil (by creating the world) just like you say God is responsible in High Calvinism! So YOU HAVE a distinction WITHOUT a difference!” Notice there that **suddenly** the High Calvinist claims that Secondary Causes DON’T get God off the hook. It’s a Flip-Flop MID-SENTENCE and so we reply: “Okay. So Calvinism is wrong to claim secondary causes mean God isn’t Morally Culpable. Have you always believed God is morally guilty for causing evil? Or is it just that he’s big so it’s not wrong when he does it?” BTW “Non-High Calvinism” is for the most part just Classical Theism. In Classical Theism, unlike in High Calvinism: •No one denies God's omniscience. •No one denies His omnipotence. •God is not to blame. •FOREKNOWLEDGE doesn’t necessitate evil in the relevant sense. Therefore: There *is a distinction *with a difference. Let’s Draw That Out: All Metaphysical Necessity is absolutely born of Sovereignty atop Decree. Adam’s Act of Sin in Eden is either Unnecessary (Free) or Necessary (Unfree). The Decree born of Sovereignty makes all the difference. Again: The Decree born of Sovereignty makes all the difference. Adam’s Act of Sin in Eden *cannot* land in Necessary-Act *if* the Decree Necessitates the following: {{Adam Freely (Unnecessarily) Acts/Chooses}} High Calvinism does not locate Metaphysical Necessity [there] at “Adam’s Necessarily Free-Act”. High Calvinism instead locates Necessity in Adam’s Choice (Fall) because — again — Metaphysical Necessity is absolutely born of Sovereignty atop Decree and High Calvinism cannot Gift Nature with Unnecessary-Act as part of any Decree. We can GRANT a Hypothetical Scenario of High Calvinism WITH a created agent (Adam) with Unnecessary-Act (Free Will) and we *still* end up with the Fall as Necessary because we end up in the following set of circumstances: Necessity Born of Sovereign Decree: ▪️Absolutely Unnecessary (Free) Act by Adam BY SOVEREIGN DECREE —&— ▪️Absolutely Necessary Fall by Adam BY SOVEREIGN DECREE See the following thread (Sub-Post) specifically Posts 673—679 See Two Screenshots:
Please bear with the length of this response, but as @Soteriology101 (recently, in another thread) complained the brevity of responses, it's necessary. It demonstrates that (contrary to Flowers' position) God brings about moral evil without God being guilty. Open to Habakkuk 1. blueletterbible.org/kjv/hab/1/1/s_… Verse 1 describes the book as a whole, namely as the burden (some translations say "oracle") that Habakkuk saw. Verses 2-4 are Habakkuk complaining to the LORD about the injustice he is experiencing in Israel at that time. Verses 5-11 describe the judgment that God is going to bring. It's the kind of judgment God promised Israel in Deuteronomy 28. It involves men doing horrific violence, enslavement, robbery, and blasphemy in the process. God takes credit for this, saying, "I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you." (Hab 1:5) Yet Habakkuk immediately responds by referring to God as the Holy One (vs. Habakkuk rightly characterizes this moral evil (on the part of the Chaldeans) as proceeding from a morally justified purpose on the part of God, namely judgment and correction. Hab 1:12 God's purpose in the Chaldaean's moral evil was moral good. In most cases of moral evil, we do not have insight into God's morally good purposes for that moral evil. However, if this moral evil can be brought about by God with good purposes (and therefore although God works, God is not guilty), who - except an atheist - would deny that God can have a good purpose in any moral evil that God brings about?
Please bear with the length of this response, but as @Soteriology101 (recently, in another thread) complained the brevity of responses, it's necessary. It demonstrates that (contrary to Flowers' position) God brings about moral evil without God being guilty. Open to Habakkuk 1. blueletterbible.org/kjv/hab/1/1/s_… Verse 1 describes the book as a whole, namely as the burden (some translations say "oracle") that Habakkuk saw. Verses 2-4 are Habakkuk complaining to the LORD about the injustice he is experiencing in Israel at that time. Verses 5-11 describe the judgment that God is going to bring. It's the kind of judgment God promised Israel in Deuteronomy 28. It involves men doing horrific violence, enslavement, robbery, and blasphemy in the process. God takes credit for this, saying, "I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you." (Hab 1:5) Yet Habakkuk immediately responds by referring to God as the Holy One (vs. Habakkuk rightly characterizes this moral evil (on the part of the Chaldeans) as proceeding from a morally justified purpose on the part of God, namely judgment and correction. Hab 1:12 God's purpose in the Chaldaean's moral evil was moral good. In most cases of moral evil, we do not have insight into God's morally good purposes for that moral evil. However, if this moral evil can be brought about by God with good purposes (and therefore although God works, God is not guilty), who - except an atheist - would deny that God can have a good purpose in any moral evil that God brings about?
I think posting "I told you so" when a pastor resigns and has admitted his sin is one of the grosser things that happens on this app, and its always the same people who do it.
