First off let me start with the issue of defining the word choose, obviously Turretinfan didn’t have a formal definition; it was something he cooked up as opposed to the dictionary. Now English vs. Hebrew, we can go to the Hebrew if we need to, but every Hebrew grammar and Lexicon I have ever read translate the words in the passages I cited as choose and that goes for both the Greek and for the Hebrew. So choose is the right word. So really the question is what the English word means at that point, because we know from the Hebrew and the Greek that the words mean choose.
Now if it’s called into question if the words should be translated choose or not, I would cite that every English translation always use choose for Deut 30 and no scholars dispute that. So the word does mean choose and I simply posit that Turretinfan has a faulty understanding of what the word means, in English.
So let’s get into this notion of you can choose otherwise if you want to.
200 years ago, determinist philosophers used the “you can if you want to” argument (that Turretinfan has used), but they don’t use it today. You know why? Because that argument was a complete failure and over time it was exposed. Now a days, determinist Philosophers have given up on the ability to do otherwise and use Frankfort examples to argue that we are responsible even though we can’t do otherwise. If you don’t believe me just read the accounts of determinist philosophers such as John Martin Fisher, Vihvelin, or Timpe and they will go head and explain the failure of what they call classical compatiblism.
Let’s look at why the “you can if you want to” aka classical compatiblism failed. It failed on linguistic analyses. My opponent requires equivocation to survive. If he said you cannot choose chocolate or not, people would ignore him. So he plays word games to sound normal without people realizing just how abnormal his views are. The bible says “you are able”, turretinfan says “you are able IF you want to”. But he doesn't mean what people normally mean by that. If I said you can eat chocolate if you want to, I mean I don’t know if you want to or not. Now if I say I can eat chocolate if I choose to, I mean it’s up to me. If turretinfan says he can eat chocolate if he wants to, he means if God had given him a different desire (and that’s a world different than the actual one) then he would be able. But God didn’t do that, so he is not able.
A quick way to expose this unusual sense is to reverse it. Would people normally say: if you don't want to, you can't eat chocolate? No, because they don’t think that. But Turretinfan thinks that.
Another way to see one of the problems in turretinfan’s analysis is that A man in a coma can eat chocolate if he chooses to. He’s physically able (but clearly he doesn't have free will – so something about turretinfan's analysis there misfires)
The bible says we can choose things, Turretinfan affirms this verbally but in reality he denies it. When I say I can choose chocolate or not, I mean that's a real ability we have. turretinfan means it's a hypothetical ability to choose collocate - you can eat chocolate, *if* you choose to.
That's a big *if*.
That *if* means your ability to eat chocolate is only hypothetical and doesn't really exist.
Your ability to eat chocolate doesn’t exist in this world. It only exists in a world with a different past where you wanted to (when in fact you didn't want to - and you couldn't have wanted to - wanting to was impossible and because you didn't actual want to, you were not actually able to eat chocolate)
Now let’s look at TF’s scriptural arguments. We will skip over the passages about ostriches, dice and the calamities, because we are talking about human choice.
So let’s look at Proverbs 21:1
The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
The passage says the King’s heart is in God’s hand, it doesn’t say it must be or always is in God's hand. Just as a car that is red can become blue, a king can harden his heart. Solomon was a good king when he wrote this and in that it applies to other kings, it’s prescriptive. Proverbs often speak as if Kings are perfectly submitted to God’s will. Do all kings always do what is right? No, but these proverbs speak as if they do, because they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Here’s some other examples of these “prefect Kings” in Proverbs:
The king’s favour is toward a wise servant: but his wrath is against him that causes shame (14:35).
Are kings always for the wise and against bad guys? No, but they should be.
A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresses not in judgment (16:10).
Are kings judgments always right? No, but they should be.
Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they love him that speaks right (16:13)
Do kings always love the truth? No, but they should.
For other examples of perfect kings see 16:12, 20:8, 22:11, & 29:4).
In the same way, are King’s hearts always direct by God? No, but they should be.
Turretinfan said he cited several texts were God causes things, specifically sins or the hardening of hearts. None of the passages he cited actually use the word cause. There was only one place and only in the King James (1 Kings 12:15), but the LXX, NIV, ESV, ASV & Darby all say “turn of affairs” instead. Also, none of the passages Turretinfan cited say those hardened can’t obey.
Now let’s look at:
Daniel 11:36 He [referring to the third king which could mean the anti-Christ] will succeed, but only until the time of wrath is completed. For what has been determined will surely take place.
The passage says God determined the anti-Christ will be judged at a certain point; it does not say what the anti-Christ will do up to that point was determined.