Open Theists use the same arguments as Calvinists: foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian freedom, although the former denies foreknowledge whilst the latter denies libertarian freedom. However, God's foreknowledge does not cause human decisions or actions. To quote an illustration I used in my paper:
God can foreknow that I will choose to put ham on my bread instead of jam. However, God's foreknowledge does not cause me to choose ham instead of jam; it only renders my free choice as being certain, not necessary. Given the fact of contingency (two possible choices), I could have chosen strawberry jam.
Yes, I deny libertarian freedom of the will. I uphold the scriptural understanding. No, you chose ham just as your nature preferred. Poor analogy. The Bible makes it very clear that the unregenerate man chooses sin and is incapable of choosing good. Therefore, even though one "possibility" may seem plausible, when it comes to the unregenerate soul, there is no other end. You keep upholding mans free will despite scriptures truth.
Quote
And equally, Arminians would believe that what you are proposing is a show of the grand Puppeteer, who pulls all of our strings and manipulates our decisions... but neither absurd illustrations strengthen either arguments.
No. Puppets have no freedom. Men do. We are free to choose, but that according to our sinful natures. This strawman has been raised and smashed repeatedly.
Quote
Secondly, is it "impossible that the end could be absolutely sure"? I don't think so. For example, God has determined to bring about the New Heavens and the New Earth, and no libertarian freedom will change that!
Why not? You stated here that man has the freedom of will to choose contrary to that plan.......
Quote
First of all, I question your definition of being "free", viz. "capable of acting contrary to a person's nature". The main premise of libertarian freedom is that man can only be free if he "could have chosen otherwise". This does NOT mean that our choices are made without the presence of influences. Rather, it means that our choices are made without being causally determined by those influences so that in the end we could have chosen otherwise.
One major dilemma is that scripture defines man as sinfully inclined, not libertarian. Your starting place needs scriptural adjustment.
Quote
So does God really foreordain people to sin by choosing the means (e.g. circumstances, desires, motives, etc.) to convince individuals, without constraint, to act contrary to God's law (such as murder)?
However, if humans willingly sin because of their corrupt nature, then there is no reason why it should be said that God foreordains or determines us to sin. Our sinful desires and thoughts are thus controlled and determined by our nature, not by God.
This is why you keep avoiding sound scriptural rendering. Let me show you a passage that shows both in action.......
Quote
Act 2:22-24 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (KJV)
Could you exegete this please? It says 1) that God predetermined these mens exact actions, and 2) these men did so willingly. Both are true, as Pilgrim stated. Please stop putting forth libertarian free will. It is unscriptural and heretical.
Here is another passage to look into.......
Quote
Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. (KJV)
Exo 9:16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. (KJV)
