I do concede that I have not covered or answered all the queries and comments you have submitted. I don’t have a problem with both of us being selective as long as we try to focus in on a central issue. I’m sure you have been in… or seen other debates where the discussion becomes too broad and the Calvinist throws out Romans 9 and the Arminian throws out John 3:16 and from there it digresses down to tallying up your number of proof-texts. I don’t have a problem with us appealing to pertinent scriptures as long as it relates to the specific issue we are examining and doesn’t draw us too far into an exegetical back-and-forth. With that said–I guess we should agree on what THE issue is.
I think your initial challenge revolved around your contention that compatibilism was distinct from hard determinism in that it retained genuine freedom of choice and did not ultimately collapse into causal determinism. My contention was vice-versa. From there I feel our conversation has covered some good ground, and I would like to keep our discussion centered on your contention/defense that genuine freedom is retained in a Calvinist rendering of compatibilism that does not result in a form of causal determinism that invalidates genuine freedom. I’d have to double check, but I think most of my questions were related to exploring your mind further on the detailed particulars of your view and how such particulars end up either reinforcing and buffering your initial contention or weakening it. What do you think? Thanks for your time and willingness to dialogue Derek and God bless!