tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914765915950240855.post8411518337384353820..comments2012-01-07T10:34:31.384-05:00Godismyjudgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914765915950240855.post-13288713746481496382012-01-07T10:34:31.384-05:002012-01-07T10:34:31.384-05:00Sounds fair!guilderbighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855547470484679467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914765915950240855.post-5792132033416947312012-01-07T09:21:01.162-05:002012-01-07T09:21:01.162-05:00Yes, my reasons are primarily independent although Matthew 11:21-23 does seem to be a significant problem for irresistable grace which in turn implies LFW.<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914765915950240855.post-65249295671139824992012-01-07T08:18:14.990-05:002012-01-07T08:18:14.990-05:00Hi,<br />I am not sure why these texts would be debated with Steve Hays. Molinists and Calvinists are hardly in disagreement about this. These texts (or at least some of them) teach the truth of counterfactual statements about human free will. But who denies that? Only open theists and proponents of the simple foreknowledge view are logically committed to the denial of counterfactuals, and maybe Molinists if the grounding objection goes through. But when arguing against Calvinists, those texts are irrelevant apart from the question-begging assertion that the free will of whose counterfactuals these texts affirm is libertarian rather than compatibilist. Now you may happen to also have a sound, independant argument for why free will must be libertarian, but surely it is not taught in these texts, is it?guilderbighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855547470484679467noreply@blogger.com