Matthew Johnson wrote:

> [Moderator: is this a duplicate?]
>
> In article <176.05.16.05.913737000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <174.03.14.05.621190000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
> >> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> >> >> Nobody outside the peanut gallery ever claimed that our wills are
> >> >> _completely_ unconstrained.
>
> >> >Then by basic English, either you are in the peanut gallery
> >> >(something I am willing to grant),
>
> >> Too willing, obviously.
>
> >Except that, for some strange reason, I haven't granted it yet.
>
> Then why _were_ you willing to grant it? And why are you even
> _talking_ about being willing to grant it? 'Fess up, Bob. There cannot
> be a good motive for doing this.
>

There is an excellent reason for doing this. There are several places
in Scripture which talks about God desiring/willing something that we
know (at least, if we aren't universalists) doesn't happen in all cases.
The free will camp will use this as proof that it is the free will of
man which thwarts the desire/will of God. But the non-free will
position says no, it isn't because man has free will, but because God's
desires are more complex than free willers allow. Yet you make the case
for me. If the free willer case were correct, the reason that I would
have granted peanut gallery status to you would be because you thwarted
my will -- but you denied this as an explanation, below.

As to my motive, there are two good ones:
1) to have you provide an example of why the non-free will explanation
of these passages is the correct one, and
2) because of a desire to show mercy. There is no need to grant you
peanut gallery status yet, unless you really, really want it.

> > I wonder how that could be.
>
> I don't. I wonder at your stubborness, laboring mightily at defending
> the indefensible.
>

It's actually pretty easy when you make my case for me.

> > Wow. "I'm willing to grant that Matthew is in the peanut gallery"
> >... but I haven't done so yet. Is that because of Matthew or because
> >of me?
>
> Because of you, obviously.
>

Bingo. So much for Ezek 18:23, et. al. I thwart my own expressed will,
because I have complex desires which play out on many layers.

> >> > or our wills are therefore constrained. And if are wills are
> >> >constrained then, _by your definition_, they aren't free.
>
> >> No, not by _my_ definition. What are you misreading to make