Matt, Lets play 'predestiny' here. What we have here is a God. An all knowing, all seeing Creator of all things including A.)time B.)dimension C. ) Destiny It seems unreasonable, not logical here to compare your relationship with your wife here to the relationship you have with your creator. Your dear wife who I presume married you under the confines of 'for better or worse'. With the hope that the 'for better' would prevail. Your creator has no such confines. Has the ability and the fortitude(as his history shows us) to not only control the rules of the game but to at any time reinvent those said rules. Those rules being that simply  put: HE RULES. A.) He rules in time. You have no option here. Your time is your time here and can be no one else's. His time is not only his time but as well your time. He can go forward or backward. One way for you, only one way. Your eternity and how you spend it is also part of your time. His eternity will never be married to your eternity no matter your love for him or your disdain for him. B.) Dimension is the biggee here in the relationship between God and man. God owns multiple dimensions. There are said to be as many as 12 dimensions, maybe up to 21. All under God's auspice of course. Man lives UNDER one dimension and controls zero. Not hardly a marriage here under any circumstance when the value finds itself tilted in such a dominent angle. [can't see the forest for the trees comes to mind  here when we observe man and his predicament as far as dimension goes.]  Watch an ant in your yard.  Follow him around for awhile as he toils and goes about his business. He hasn't a clue nor the capacity to know that you are peering over him and have total dimension over him and you are both in the same sphere(dimension). At any time you may end his being. Now multiply that by 12 or 21. There is your ratio to God. For worse becomes the ominous possibility  with these numbers. C.) Your only saving grace. Destiny. God has given you a game to play. You play the faith game or you lose. Do not try to figure the game out you are 21 times smaller than the ant, the rules are forever changing and your time is never his time. Faith it is then. I'm in. When I was talking the need for salvation. I was not talking OUR(man's) need but rather God's need for the plan of salvation. God's plan is kind of similiar to that of the marines. He only needs a few good men. As per the rule ( the road is wide to not succeed and narrow to succeed.) We can certainly debate religion because religion is about man and his lowly dimension that he does not own and is just UNDER. All of that is up in the air because that is all it amounts to AIR. No debate on God and his game, his multiple of dimensions,  his {my way,  or the highway}. Play the faith game and add a dimension(an eternity to keep playing). Disregard the rules of the maker of the game and you are done. Crisp. Can you say bacon? I love talking about it but in the end. It has all been said. It is said that Jesus said "it is finished" on the cross. I believe they misheard him. What he really said was. "Aposiopesis' which means- the leaving of something incomplete. Sidney          

I was not aware that these standard terms in theological discourse for several centuries were part of my secret code. If you are going to talk about "Free choice" and construct, by your own admission, a theology around your intuitions about free choice, then shouldn't you be the one to define your terms? When I used these, I am using them no different than the Reformed tradition has used them and basic philosophy uses them, and these are easily accessible.

You could start by consulting what the Westminister Confession or the Second London Baptist Confession says about providence and free agency, or a standard reference like Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, Robert Reymond's, or just going to Monergism.com to look up some material.

The classic exposition is Jonathan Edwards' Inquiry on the Freedom of [the] Will. A summary can be found in Paul Helm's book on Divine Providence. John Frame's Doctrine of God also contains a section or two on this.

Online treatments, not from a Christian perspective, include:

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014SECT1

For more in-depth coverage, there's:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/supplement.html

 

Libetarian freedom is simply a generalized construct that states that freedom is contracausal. Put another way, "ability limits responsibility." The Orthodox, Arminians, Catholics, and most other traditions, bar Calvinists are "Libertarians." It means they affirm indeterminate freedom. For a choice to be "real," the agent must be free from causes. I affirm determinate freedom. He is neither free from God's decrees nor free from his own desires. He will always act according to his strongest one.

There are two types of determinism: hard and soft. I affirm the latter, not the former. The agent is free to do otherwise, if he desires to do so. The confessions implicityly opt for this one. You can find many articles on this subject on my blog, Triablogue.

For example:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/todays-your-lucky-day.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/agent-causation.html

and here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/contemporary-compatibilism.html

You're the one making claims about Proverbs 16 and "free choice," so, I'll ask again - since you did not provide an answer to my query - where is "free choice" in this text?

The text you cited is part of a larger argument that denies "free choice," defined the way you seem to wish to define it, that is is Libertarian terms.

1The plans of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

4The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.

9The mind of man plans his way,
But the LORD directs his steps.
10A divine decision is in the lips of the king;
His mouth should not err in judgment.

33The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the LORD.

Chapter 21:

1The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD;
He turns it wherever He wishes.

That's just a sample.

I'm rather concerned about this statement:

But most of my theology does rest on the presupposition that either we do in fact have free will, or that we at least experience the world as though we did, so we should structure our theology as if we did have it, since it's probably impossible to know for certain. In other words, if I don't have free will, then God forced me to wrongly believe that I do, so who am I to object to his decision?

A. The last statement is a nonsequitur, and you're implicitly assuming a particular action theory.

Also, you're confusing causality and providence. Your argument seems to be: If God decreed x then I don't have"free will" if it is infallibly secured by the decree that I will do it." But decrees are like blueprints, only delineating the ends. Providence, usually secondaray causes, work out the means.

B. That action theory seems to be based on intuition. Where is the supporting argument?

C. If "impossible" to know, then that would cut both ways, so your last statement is not selected by this statement. Rather, we should develop two theologies one as if we do and another as if we do not.

D. I should think that we should develop our theology based on Scripture not intuitions, and Scripture, does, in point of fact, talk about this subject.

The question is not "Do we have 'free will?" but what kind of "free will" do we have?

From an atheist perspective Oppy writes: On the libertarian conception of freedom, one acts freely only if, in the very circumstances in which one acted, it was within one's power to do otherwise--which is incompatible with efficient causation of action. But as I see it, the only alternative to efficient causation is absence of causation; and, if one's actions are only 'free' because they have no causes, then this is not a kind of 'freedom' worth wanting.

Steve Hays talked about him here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/oppy-on-atheism.html

Note that even Oppy realizes where libertarianism cashes out at the level of causality - there are no causes to our behavior. That is a standard definition for libertarian action theory.

Libertarianism is an abstract generalization of the principle that "ability limits responsibility," such that, if our decisions (choices) are afflicted by any kind of inability, then they are not truly free and we are not truly responsible (eg. blameworthy) for them. Freedom is contracausal. Put another way, at the level of causality, choices are uncaused, but not unassisted.

So, I say that to demonstrate what it is that the libertarian must prove from Scripture, and that, if you take the position you have taken, is what you must show. Libertarians, therefore, do not generally stake out their position from Scripture. It's a axiomatic concept they admittedly impose upon it (Miley, Systematic Theology, Vol.2, 275)

Scripture is very consistent in attributing the choices of men to antecedent causes. Proverbs 16 attributes several to God. James 2 is very clear that men are led astray "by their own evil desires."

Matt. 7:15 - 20 and Lk. 6:43 - 45 teach the good tree brings forth good fruit, and the evil tree bad fruit. Our actions come from the heart. Libertarianism destroys the unity of the personality in the heart of man as described in Scripture. It is a construct that libertarians admit to bringing to the text of Scripture. The onus is on them to show it is grounded in Scripture.

All that I have to do is show texts like the ones above that prove explicitly that men are not free from antecedent causation of our decisions either in relation to God or to their own desires and motives. Any appeal to an inner motive in man directly undercuts libertarian freedom, for libertarianism, by definition, cuts the causal nerve - and, when Scripture speaks on these matters it speaks of God's overruling, indeed outright directing, the minds and hearts and actions of men, and it attributes our decisions, actions, etc. to our motives as well.

The heart of man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps. (Prov. 16:9, cf. 16:1, 19:21)

"the Lord caused the men throughout the camp to turn on each other with their swords." (Jdgs 7:22).

"the filled (Israel) w/joy by changing the attitude of the king of Assyria" (Ezra 6:22)

The Lord foreordained that the robe of the Lord Jesus was not turn but lots were cast for it (Jn 19:24, quoting Ps. 22:18, cf. Jn 19:31 - 37).

Then we have the passages on divine hardening of Pharaoh and Sihon; God sending an evil spirit to torment Saul, and another instance of Him sending evil spirits to cause the false prophets to lie, in order to lead Ahab to his death (I Kings 22:20 - 23).

Isaiah 10 tells us that God raised of Assyria/Babylon to judge Israel and yet held them accountable for their sins in doing so.

Isa. 6 (and John 12) speak of divine hardening. The latter is an instance parallel to the former. Isa. 63 says that God makes us (Israel) wander from your (His) ways and hardens our hearts so we do not revere him (vs. 17).

Ps. 33:15 says the Lord fashions, eg. directs the heart not only of kings (Proverbs 21:1) but of all people.

Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks (Luke 6;45; Mt. 7:15 - 20, 12:33- 35).

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ...8: 47"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God. By nature, they were not of God. There nature determined their desires.

Simply put, there is no passage of Scripture that can be construed to mean that the human will is independent of God's plan and of the rest of the human personality/psyche. The exact opposite is the case. Libertarians, I might add, don't usually try to establish there position from exegesis for this very reason.