The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is compatibilism the only true Calvinist response?

Pilgrim,

Thanks for the clarification, especially regarding the distinction between the Calvinist shunning of "free-will" and simultaneous acceptance of "freedom of the will". I think your explanation is very clear, and I take it as reliable and consistent with the 5 points of Calvinism, and therefore with the Bible. And I therefore accept your defense of compatibilism as valid and reliable. Even so, Terrence Tiessen apparently has a concern that might be valid. I don't know. According to Boanerges, Tiessen says,


By "meticulous providence", I suspect Tiessen means essentially the same thing that Sproul means when he says, "no maverick molecules". When Tiessen says "human freedom", he probably means the same thing as the Calvinist "freedom of the will". When he talks about , if it's true that traditional Calvinism holds this view of God's timelessness, then I suspect that this may be a legitimate concern. If traditional Calvinism holds to a timeless view of God, then it looks reasonable to me to wonder if this timelessness was imported into Christian theology from Greco-Romans, because it appears to me that the God of the pre-Christian Hebrews was, and is, a "highly relational personal being". I don't doubt that you're right in indicating that Tiessen's "middle knowledge" doesn't do justice to the sovereignty of God. I'm trying to figure out if he has an inadequate solution to a legitimate problem.