Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
I think I presented the defeater already:
The "defeater" would be the many, many texts about God controlling everything. He controls some things by giving us relatively free control and by buffering those things where he chooses that we don't get exactly what we will. Our control when effective is a subset of his control, confluent. Ineffectivenesses are both his choice to make some as marred, dishonored vessels and the vessels' choice to resist the good, because those two choices are the same freedom from different perspectives. We might say that our choosing God is God's choosing God, and our choosing evil is God's choosing the good that some choices be partly thwarted, and the good that evil choices be buffered in their ability to harm anyone. Thus when another is harmed by my choice, I'm responsible for the evil I intended (which I couldn't fully carry out), but God is responsible for what he chooses to allow in his grace toward me (partial freewill) and toward the victim (not giving suffering beyond what can be borne and is fitting to the overall narrative).
Ultimately, those who reject the "proorizo" texts are weakening their view of God when a more robust answer to theodicy is available.
Nah, that's the predestination heresy which is not upheld by the early fathers aside from St. Augustine. God creates everyone with the possibility to freely choose Him and be saved. As for the fallen sinful nature, this is not God's creation but the result of the fall. God can't create "marred" or imperfect things because that's contrary to His perfect nature (claiming otherwise is like claiming God can lie, at which point you're talking about Allah/Satan or some other deity).
My defeater is purely logical and doesn't delve in theology where lots of objections are possible. I kept the argument with him in the philosophical realm for a reason.
I appreciate the Orthodox perspective. I'm sure the 6 uses of "proorizo" have an alternate reading or translation in Orthodoxy that is ultimately compatible, as well as all the sovereignty passages. I haven't learned the lingual net necessary to agree with your uses of the words, will keep trying. I might someday ask for your view of specific patristics on "proorizo" (prehorizoning).
I wasn't intending that God created marred vessels, but in Jeremiah the marring happens (by human freewill) and in Romans the dishonor and wrath is purposed in coordination with human freewill. Add:
Sounds like "able not to sin". If Augustine were interpreted that one is only "able not to sin" by one's own choice and God's choice flowing together as one, that might be the path of resolution. "Able" is another horridly ambiguous word.
I don't think so. God's will and a person's will are separate. God always wills the good so His will is fixed. A person can align himself with God's will or he can choose to go against it. I don't see the problem with the word able. We can use "possibility" and still arrive at the same point.