Arminian Perspectives
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/
I stumbled across this website via the combox of another blog. In my estimation, Arminianism is indefensible. But that doesn't stop its proponents from trying.
Let's see if J. C. Thibodaux can present arguments half as interesting as his name.
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/prevenient-grace-and-libertarian-free.html
Thibodaux:
Very well. Here is Thibodaux's statement of purpose. He intends to argue for two things, (1) Libertarian Free Will, and (2) Prevenient Grace.
He'll also assume both as he argues his case. And as he assumes both he will be implicitly rejecting their counterparts: (1) Determinism (specifically for our purposes, Compatibilism), and (2) Efficacious Grace. Keep this in mind.
Continuing:
1. It appears that Thibodaux affirms the Reformed view of Total Depravity. But the Reformed view of Total Depravity runs against the spontaneous flux of Libertarian Freedom. As Thibodaux puts it above, if the human will is "in bondage to sin" and human beings are "by nature blind and hard-hearted," so much so that they "cannot believe in Christ of their own accord," then Adam's sin is a powerfully determinative force. Total Depravity isn't a heavy inclination, but a fixed disposition towards evil. Yet the choice to repent and believe in Christ isn't a physical one, but a spiritual one. Meaning that it is within the physical, psychological, and intellectual reach of every person. There isn't a physical limitation impeding us from looking toward heaven and trusting Christ. Nor is there a mental defect keeping us away. Nor still is there an intellectual deficiency that keeps us from understanding something about the command to repent. There is simply a moral inability to make the right choice. And this inability is total.
Here is where Thibodaux's position dissolves into incoherence. In LFW, an option that is do-able must be truly choose-able. If we were talking about dunking a basketball into a 20-foot basket, then that is a physical impossibility for our Arminian friend. It isn't do-able, given gravity, so therefore it isn't choose-able. It's a theoretical option, but it isn't a live option. The scheme of freedom in the Libertarian sense remains intact since he is unable to jump that high. And since he can't jump that high; since dunking is undo-able, then LFW avoids this defeater. But trusting in Christ, although do-able, isn't truly choose-able given the Reformed view of Total Depravity. Arminianism, at this point, reveals itself as profoundly incoherent. Depravity influences the chooser to such a degree that a do-able option becomes unchoose-able. And this is incompatible (pun intended) with Libertarian Free Will.
At this point Thibodaux can deflect all of this by arguing that Prevenient Grace introduces LFW into the picture. But he must concede that were it not for Prevenient Grace, human freedom would be Compatibilistic--free yet determined. Prevenient Grace is necessary to off-set the fixed disposition humans have towards evil. It is necessary to "level the playing field," or to "neutralize," if you prefer. And here we have a God who is playing with dialectic schemes of freedom.
This can be avoided by the Arminian by rejecting Total Depravity, yet Thibodaux wants to hang on. Internally, however, the inconsistencies are furiously colliding and forcing an implosion.
But before the fireworks go off there appear even more problems, because now we see that if it weren't for God's grace, the human race would be determined to fail, though it wouldn't be their faults, because they didn't have the freedom to succeed in the Libertarian sense. And this is inviolable for every Arminian. Now God is unjust in punishing man unless he gives grace. And the implications are that God is forced to "award" grace in order to justly punish the ones who reject him. But God being forced to award grace in order to introduce Libertarian Free Will reduces grace to something God had to do. And grace no longer becomes grace but obligation.
Thus, Libertarian Free Will and the Reformed view of Total Depravity cannot be held together. And when push comes to shove, the Arminian will unfailingly affirm LFW, leaving Total Depravity behind. What ends up happening is the Arminian defaults to a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian anthropology. This is the standard position, yet recently wide-eyed cherry-pickers like Thibodaux seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. But one of these must go.
2. Thibodaux mentions that Prevenient Grace is "stronger than sin," yet if grace contains properties that are more powerful than human depravity, then why isn't everybody saved?
3. Amazingly, Thibodaux quotes John 6:44. But where is the exegesis?
Has Thibodaux bothered to consult the other side here?
Those that go to Jesus do so because they have been drawn by the Father. And these God raises up at the last day. But Prevenient Grace is present in every person.
Two options appear here for Thibodaux.
I) The ones that God raises up at the last day include everyone, the heaven-bound and the hell-bound. Jesus is talking about the general resurrection.
But this doesn't make sense given 6:39-40:
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Verse 40 rephrases verse 39, and it becomes obvious that those destined to eternal life are in view here, not every single person.
Also this view rips verse 44 out of its context, which finds Jesus explaining the unbelief of some and the belief of others. Their defection isn't evidence that he isn't the Messiah, it is confirmation, since only those given to him by God will "remain in light," as the Talking Heads would say.
II) The ones that God raises up at the last day include everyone, and everyone is heaven-bound. But then Thibodaux would be a Universalist.
It seems to be that this verse is untenable for Thibodaux unless he goes for one of these two options. And I get the funny feeling that when he posted his article he didn't have either of these options in mind.
If I may guess, I believe Thibodaux had the following view in mind.
III) The ones that God raises up at the last day include only Christians, and only Christians will be heaven-bound.
Yet above he states that Prevenient Grace is the grace of 6:44, and Prevenient Grace is given to all men. Since the text establishes the chain between the drawn ones and the resurrected ones, this view is deeply incoherent as well. Thibodaux must choose between one and two above, or give up his acontextual designation that the grace of 6:44 is Prevenient Grace.
Continuing:
I see that Thibodaux has disregarded the context again. Here is Titus 2:1-10:
"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. 9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."
Let's do a quick inventory of everybody included in these verses.
Older men
Older women
Young women
Younger men
Titus
Slaves
Verse 11 begins with "For," which links 11 and 12 with the preceding verses. The "all men" refers to men and women occupying different positions in life, and not every person in general. If it refers to every person in general two problems arise:
1) It eschews surrounding context. The context doesn't indicate that every person has received "the grace of God that brings salvation." He lists certain stations in life and teaches that God has awarded grace to people in all of these positions, and not merely for younger men, or for younger women, but for all.
2) The grace "brings salvation." If grace brings salvation, then salvation occurs. If grace doesn't bring salvation, like common grace, then salvation doesn't occur. If Thibodaux rejects this reading and wishes to argue that "brings salvation" means "brings [the possibility] of salvation" then he should provide the supporting argument.
Thibodaux is downplaying the implications I've outlined above. Unless God's grace appears to all men without qualification, then men are vindicated from charge of sin or evil on an Arminian scheme since they couldn't do anything but sin or evil.
Can Thibodaux explain the following for us: (1) If man is Totally Depraved, yet has been given (2) Prevenient Grace which enables him to repent and believe, then what exactly accounts for the decision to either remain in 1 or act upon 2? What separates Person A who selects 1 and Person B who selects option 2?
Also, if Prevenient Grace is "stronger than sin," then why isn't everyone saved, since it contains stronger properties than those in human depravity.
By the way, in this post I've responded to Thibodaux's own statements. Additionally, (and more importantly), for Thibodaux to be taken seriously he needs to provide an argument for LFW from the Bible.
I see that Thibodaux links to Why I Am Not a Calvinist on his blog. Walls and Dongell argue for LFW on the grounds of experience, intuition, and moral responsibility (ch. 4). Is this Thibodaux's own argument as well?
An exegetically-sound presentation of Arminianism is still found wanting.
I stumbled across this website via the combox of another blog. In my estimation, Arminianism is indefensible. But that doesn't stop its proponents from trying.
Let's see if J. C. Thibodaux can present arguments half as interesting as his name.
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/prevenient-grace-and-libertarian-free.html
Thibodaux:
"One cannot correctly understand the Arminian/Synergist view of libertarian free will without first understanding prevenient grace."
Very well. Here is Thibodaux's statement of purpose. He intends to argue for two things, (1) Libertarian Free Will, and (2) Prevenient Grace.
He'll also assume both as he argues his case. And as he assumes both he will be implicitly rejecting their counterparts: (1) Determinism (specifically for our purposes, Compatibilism), and (2) Efficacious Grace. Keep this in mind.
Continuing:
"Reformed theologians are correct in saying that the human will is in bondage to sin stemming from the sin of Adam,
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)
Thus by nature, human beings are blind and hard-hearted towards the gospel and cannot believe in Christ of their own accord. To overcome the power of the sinful nature, something stronger than sin must enter into the equation, which can only come from God. Jesus said in John 6:44,
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
1. It appears that Thibodaux affirms the Reformed view of Total Depravity. But the Reformed view of Total Depravity runs against the spontaneous flux of Libertarian Freedom. As Thibodaux puts it above, if the human will is "in bondage to sin" and human beings are "by nature blind and hard-hearted," so much so that they "cannot believe in Christ of their own accord," then Adam's sin is a powerfully determinative force. Total Depravity isn't a heavy inclination, but a fixed disposition towards evil. Yet the choice to repent and believe in Christ isn't a physical one, but a spiritual one. Meaning that it is within the physical, psychological, and intellectual reach of every person. There isn't a physical limitation impeding us from looking toward heaven and trusting Christ. Nor is there a mental defect keeping us away. Nor still is there an intellectual deficiency that keeps us from understanding something about the command to repent. There is simply a moral inability to make the right choice. And this inability is total.
Here is where Thibodaux's position dissolves into incoherence. In LFW, an option that is do-able must be truly choose-able. If we were talking about dunking a basketball into a 20-foot basket, then that is a physical impossibility for our Arminian friend. It isn't do-able, given gravity, so therefore it isn't choose-able. It's a theoretical option, but it isn't a live option. The scheme of freedom in the Libertarian sense remains intact since he is unable to jump that high. And since he can't jump that high; since dunking is undo-able, then LFW avoids this defeater. But trusting in Christ, although do-able, isn't truly choose-able given the Reformed view of Total Depravity. Arminianism, at this point, reveals itself as profoundly incoherent. Depravity influences the chooser to such a degree that a do-able option becomes unchoose-able. And this is incompatible (pun intended) with Libertarian Free Will.
At this point Thibodaux can deflect all of this by arguing that Prevenient Grace introduces LFW into the picture. But he must concede that were it not for Prevenient Grace, human freedom would be Compatibilistic--free yet determined. Prevenient Grace is necessary to off-set the fixed disposition humans have towards evil. It is necessary to "level the playing field," or to "neutralize," if you prefer. And here we have a God who is playing with dialectic schemes of freedom.
This can be avoided by the Arminian by rejecting Total Depravity, yet Thibodaux wants to hang on. Internally, however, the inconsistencies are furiously colliding and forcing an implosion.
But before the fireworks go off there appear even more problems, because now we see that if it weren't for God's grace, the human race would be determined to fail, though it wouldn't be their faults, because they didn't have the freedom to succeed in the Libertarian sense. And this is inviolable for every Arminian. Now God is unjust in punishing man unless he gives grace. And the implications are that God is forced to "award" grace in order to justly punish the ones who reject him. But God being forced to award grace in order to introduce Libertarian Free Will reduces grace to something God had to do. And grace no longer becomes grace but obligation.
Thus, Libertarian Free Will and the Reformed view of Total Depravity cannot be held together. And when push comes to shove, the Arminian will unfailingly affirm LFW, leaving Total Depravity behind. What ends up happening is the Arminian defaults to a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian anthropology. This is the standard position, yet recently wide-eyed cherry-pickers like Thibodaux seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. But one of these must go.
2. Thibodaux mentions that Prevenient Grace is "stronger than sin," yet if grace contains properties that are more powerful than human depravity, then why isn't everybody saved?
3. Amazingly, Thibodaux quotes John 6:44. But where is the exegesis?
Has Thibodaux bothered to consult the other side here?
Those that go to Jesus do so because they have been drawn by the Father. And these God raises up at the last day. But Prevenient Grace is present in every person.
Two options appear here for Thibodaux.
I) The ones that God raises up at the last day include everyone, the heaven-bound and the hell-bound. Jesus is talking about the general resurrection.
But this doesn't make sense given 6:39-40:
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Verse 40 rephrases verse 39, and it becomes obvious that those destined to eternal life are in view here, not every single person.
Also this view rips verse 44 out of its context, which finds Jesus explaining the unbelief of some and the belief of others. Their defection isn't evidence that he isn't the Messiah, it is confirmation, since only those given to him by God will "remain in light," as the Talking Heads would say.
II) The ones that God raises up at the last day include everyone, and everyone is heaven-bound. But then Thibodaux would be a Universalist.
It seems to be that this verse is untenable for Thibodaux unless he goes for one of these two options. And I get the funny feeling that when he posted his article he didn't have either of these options in mind.
If I may guess, I believe Thibodaux had the following view in mind.
III) The ones that God raises up at the last day include only Christians, and only Christians will be heaven-bound.
Yet above he states that Prevenient Grace is the grace of 6:44, and Prevenient Grace is given to all men. Since the text establishes the chain between the drawn ones and the resurrected ones, this view is deeply incoherent as well. Thibodaux must choose between one and two above, or give up his acontextual designation that the grace of 6:44 is Prevenient Grace.
Continuing:
"Left to our own devices our hearts would remain willfully closed forever to the good news; and left with only our own powers and diligence, there would be none who could endure to the end. But the grace of God changes all of that, for to even the worst of sinners it may be said,
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age... (Titus 2:11-12)"
I see that Thibodaux has disregarded the context again. Here is Titus 2:1-10:
"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. 9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."
Let's do a quick inventory of everybody included in these verses.
Older men
Older women
Young women
Younger men
Titus
Slaves
Verse 11 begins with "For," which links 11 and 12 with the preceding verses. The "all men" refers to men and women occupying different positions in life, and not every person in general. If it refers to every person in general two problems arise:
1) It eschews surrounding context. The context doesn't indicate that every person has received "the grace of God that brings salvation." He lists certain stations in life and teaches that God has awarded grace to people in all of these positions, and not merely for younger men, or for younger women, but for all.
2) The grace "brings salvation." If grace brings salvation, then salvation occurs. If grace doesn't bring salvation, like common grace, then salvation doesn't occur. If Thibodaux rejects this reading and wishes to argue that "brings salvation" means "brings [the possibility] of salvation" then he should provide the supporting argument.
"and the very weakest of saints have power far greater than that of their sins working in them,
...for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. (Phillipians 2:13)
Working also in those who love Him to understand His will,
Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. (Acts 16:14)
And it is for this reason that we espouse libertarian free will, for while man does inherently have a sinful nature bent only on evil, the presence and power of God's grace which has appeared throughout the world gives us a different path and possibility to follow -- a contrary choice to make between the goodness of God and the sinful ways of the world. Thus it must be noted that the exercise of the will towards good does not and cannot exist apart from the grace of God, for without grace there would be nought to pick but our own choice between devilish poisons."
Thibodaux is downplaying the implications I've outlined above. Unless God's grace appears to all men without qualification, then men are vindicated from charge of sin or evil on an Arminian scheme since they couldn't do anything but sin or evil.
Can Thibodaux explain the following for us: (1) If man is Totally Depraved, yet has been given (2) Prevenient Grace which enables him to repent and believe, then what exactly accounts for the decision to either remain in 1 or act upon 2? What separates Person A who selects 1 and Person B who selects option 2?
Also, if Prevenient Grace is "stronger than sin," then why isn't everyone saved, since it contains stronger properties than those in human depravity.
By the way, in this post I've responded to Thibodaux's own statements. Additionally, (and more importantly), for Thibodaux to be taken seriously he needs to provide an argument for LFW from the Bible.
I see that Thibodaux links to Why I Am Not a Calvinist on his blog. Walls and Dongell argue for LFW on the grounds of experience, intuition, and moral responsibility (ch. 4). Is this Thibodaux's own argument as well?
An exegetically-sound presentation of Arminianism is still found wanting.
Labels: Arminianism, Belvedere, Libertarianism, Prevenient Grace, Total Depravity
posted by Berny at 8:50 PM
37 comment(s):
I was wondering when one of us would get round to this blog. I saw it awhile back and noted it to Steve, but @ the time we both waived commentary as I recall.
A couple of notes:
The Arminian exegesis of John 6:44 leaves out some important elements you didn't touch upon for the reader, so, if you don't mind I will here.
1. This text is part of "the book of signs." Coming to the Christ is the sign of having been drawn by the Father, which is, in turn the sign of having been given to Christ. Being raised on the last day is the sign of having come to Christ. Jesus is discussing the reason people don't believe. That is to say, of what is unbelief a sign? The answer is not to say, "that a man is not drawn..." John's emphasis is on belief, so John words the answer to the question of unbelief by telling us the reason that lies behind belief. This seems to be an unending source of confusion for the Libertarians.
2. Since Arminianism will reduce to some sort of "foreseen faith" position, even if election is simply corporate altogether, the disjunction, apropos 1, occurs when you trace the chain back to having been given to the Father. John moves from having been given to being drawn to being raised, but in the Arminian scheme, at the very least, one's faith is the basis of being given. So while drawing logically precedes coming, coming is the logical basis for being given, ergo, coming, not giving has logical priority. This inverts the text.
2. Which also gets us to something that Libertarians must desperately avoid. The MUST avoid making choices dependent on sufficient causes. Yet this text makes grace a sufficient cause of coming.
So, implicit in UPG (universal prevenient grace) is the assumption, without benefit of argument, that grace (drawing) is quantitative, not qualitative. Where is the supporting argument?
4. Finally, John is fond of the Prophets. Consequently, he often mimics their writing style and quotes from them. 6:45 is a recapitulation of Isa 54:13. It's also a repetition of Isaiah's style with respect to his strophes. In Isaiah, the strophes are often epexegetical to each other. 6:45 is epexegetical to 6:44.
5. Consequently, if LFW and UPG are true, then one winds up with universalism, not particularism in John 6. I take it your foil is not a universalist. The choice is not been Arminianism and Calvinism, but between universalism and Calvinism, the same way that the choice,with respect to foreknowledge of the future is not between Molinism and Simple Foreknowledge and the other two, for Open Theism is only as true as Calvinism is false.
This was really a great read. I especially liked the argument that the conjunction of Total Depravity with UPG leads to the absurd conclusion that UPG is forced (and what kind of grace is that?), for God would be unjust if he did not provide UPG. Excellent!
One could wish that the self-appointed defender of Arminianism in question here would now interact with this article, marshalling all of his mad skills for coherence of argumentation and careful exegesis. I got my popcorn ready.
Dear Mr. Belvedere,
I loved your show.
I just thought I would stop in between turkey dinners here... JC is a big boy and can look after himself, but I did want to add my 2 cents.
I appreciated the fact that you didn't misrepresent Arminians as Semi-Pelagians. Rather your strategy seems to be to question the internal consistency of the Arminian viewpoint. That's good. You took the time to get to know what Arminians are saying, rather than misrepresenting us. But I caution you that you’re leaving Arminianism 101 and heading towards Arminianism 201. For your arguments to be credible, you will need more than a surface level understanding of the Arminian position. I fear you may have missed some of JC's subtle points.
You said: "At this point Thibodaux can deflect all of this by arguing that Prevenient Grace introduces LFW into the picture. But he must concede that were it not for Prevenient Grace, human freedom would be Compatibilistic--free yet determined."
But JC had said: "for without grace there would be nought to pick but our own choice between devilish poisons."
Without grace we are not left with Compatiblistic freedom, but rather freedom among sinful alternatives. Should I go inside and yell at my wife, or should I go out back and smoke pot?
If we have no alternatives, we are not making choices. Freedom doesn't mean we can choose anything, but rather that we can choose from among two or more options. Just because both options are sinful doesn’t mean we are not choosing. But if we are predetermined to do one and only one thing, such that everything else is impossible, we are not choosing.
The fundamental concept for LFW is the ability to do otherwise. Given all preceding causes the agent can choose this or he can choose that. It doesn't matter if all the alternatives are sinful or not. So depravity does not lead to determinism.
You said: "Now God is unjust in punishing man unless he gives grace. And the implications are that God is forced to "award" grace in order to justly punish the ones who reject him. But God being forced to award grace in order to introduce Libertarian Free Will reduces grace to something God had to do. And grace no longer becomes grace but obligation."
This is a powerful argument and I am inclined to agree with it. (JC may not, Arminians may vary on this point.) After the fall God could have destroyed mankind, without grace.
When I read Arminius on this topic the thought process I get is that two things are fundamental for responsibility.
1) freewill (as described above)
2) God's commands
The issue here is not that man is obligated to do the impossible, but rather would God (who is justice) command the impossible? On the surface these looks like the same thing. But they are not. God issued His commands to Adam, when Adam could keep them. So God wasn't requiring the impossible. But if Adam was causally predetermined to fall, God was requiring the impossible.
Commanding the impossible and maintain a standard even though man ruins himself are not the same thing. I do think God could have justly destroyed mankind after the fall, but thank God for His mercy.
So for mankind to be responsible he must be the causal source of his actions (ie agent causation) and he must violate God’s just commands.
You said: Amazingly, Thibodaux quotes John 6:44. But where is the exegesis?
JC was quoting John 6:44 in favor of depravity, not previnient grace. As such a detailed explanation wasn’t needed. However you have provided an agrument for irresistable grace, so I will address it. BTW, I think you have a contributor by the name of Evan May who I discussed John 6 in detail with some time ago. Let’s see…
If I said 1 + 2 = 3, therefore if we see the equation 1 + X = Y we can conclude X = 2 and Y =3, would I be right? No. X could be 4 and Y could be 5.
John 6 says:
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
We have three elements: coming, drawing and being raised up. So it’s:
Drawn + come = raised up
From this you have concluded that all drawn are raised up. But what if some drawn do not come? The passage doesn’t exclude the possiblity that:
Drawn + don’t come = not raised up.
Granted, it’s talking about those who do come and are raised up, but it’s not saying all drawn are raised up or that all drawn come. So it does not prove irresistable grace.
You asked: If man is Totally Depraved, yet has been given (2) Prevenient Grace which enables him to repent and believe, then what exactly accounts for the decision to either remain in 1 or act upon 2? What separates Person A who selects 1 and Person B who selects option 2?
Hum… LFW is the idea that that the agent is the causal source of her actions. So nothing accounts for why an agent does what she does, except her. If you are looking for a sufficent cause it doesn’t exist. That would be comparing two non-existant things: the sufficient cause for person A’s choice and the sufficient cause of person B’s choice. I fear this is what you may be asking. But if you are just looking for the source of the choices, it’s person A and person B. But this choice does not save. Prevenient grace is followed by saving grace. Twas grace that taugh my heart to fear, and grace my fear relieved.
You said: Additionally, (and more importantly), for Thibodaux to be taken seriously he needs to provide an argument for LFW from the Bible.
The Bible says many times that men have wills and make choices. LFW is triple redundant. The will has to be free to be a will and of course it’s at liberty if it’s free. The only point of the term is to distingish it from compatiblistic free will. But don’t be mistaken. It’s nothing more that a definition of the biblical term will or choice.
The alternative to LFw, compatiblism has big problems, so that’s why we go with LFW.
Happy thanksgiving,
Dan
Drawn + come = raised up
From this you have concluded that all drawn are raised up. But what if some drawn do not come? The passage doesn’t exclude the possiblity that:
Drawn + don’t come = not raised up.
Actually, it does, for 6:45 is epexegetical to 6:44. If you're going to insert a disjunction, you need a supporting argument derived from the text itself to demonstrate it. Can you provide one without running to John 12?
No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
It is written in the prophets, "and they shall all be taught of God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
So, everyone comes is raised up.
Everyone who has heard and learns from the Father comes.
So, according to you, "drawing" and "hearing and learning from the Father" are not the same thing. However, the text itself explicitly explains "drawing" as "hearing and learning from the Father." The choice here is between universalism and Calvinism.
Granted, it’s talking about those who do come and are raised up, but it’s not saying all drawn are raised up or that all drawn come. So it does not prove irresistable grace.
The problem here is that 6:44 - 45 is an explanation of why people DON'T believe. They don't believe because they are not drawn. They don't believe because they do not hear and are not taught by the Father.
Hum… LFW is the idea that that the agent is the causal source of her actions.
And this results in there being no sufficient cause to their actions, by your own admission. LFW is surd, for it cuts the causal nerve.
We do not deny that agents are the "causal source" of their actions. Rather, we deny any action theory that leads to those choices having no cause behind the actions. Saying that the agent is the causal source is superfluous for the believer in LFW. The issue is not the existence of an agent, but what lies behind the actions of the agent. Why does one person believe and not another?
So nothing accounts for why an agent does what she does, except her.
Not exactly, this would be more appropriately worded, "So nothing accounts for why an agent does what she does - period.
The problem for the libertarian is not what causes event x from the standpoint of God and man, but what causes x from the standpoint of man. Why does one person choose x and not y? A consistent libertarian has to cut the causal nerve in his own mind. If he appeals to any motives whatsoever, he is abandoning his libertarianism for compatibilism. Thus, by eschewing causality, libertarianism lacks explanatory power. And in the absence of explanatory power, it is irrational to the core. It cannot explain why agents act or refrain from acting.
If you are looking for a sufficent cause it doesn’t exist.
And this proves exactly what I just stated. Thank you for this frank admission.
The Bible says many times that men have wills and make choices.
"Choice" and LFW are not convertible principles unless you beg the question, and Calvinism does not deny men have wills.
The will has to be free to be a will and of course it’s at liberty if it’s free.
This is not an argument from Scripture. Rather, this is a classic example of begging the question.
Calvinism does not deny "free will." See the LBCF2 and WCF on "Free will."
Where does the Bible teach the will is free in the libertarian sense?
The Bible teaches that the heart of the king is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord, He turns it whichever way He wishes. The Bible says that men are led astray by their own evil desires. Not only does the Bible not teach LFW, it explicitly denies LFW exists. "Free will" is the oldest heresy in the book, literally.
There is no exegetical argument for LFW in the Bible. BB pointed the reader to Walls and Dongell. Here's what Walls and Dongell say:
(1) “The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined.”
(2) “…It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.
(3) “Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.”
“…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.”
The alternative to LFw, compatiblism has big problems, so that’s why we go with LFW.
This is schizophrenic thinking for the classical Arminian, for in affirming total depravity at first, he is affirming compatibilist freedom. What he gives with the one hand, he then takes away with UPG. Perhaps its the tryptophan in the turkey.
Dear Gene,
You said: the text itself explicitly explains "drawing" as "hearing and learning from the Father."
Drawing would be the equivalent of the Father teaching, not the student’s hearing and learning. One is an action on the part of the Father, the other us. All are taught, those who learn, come… This helps explain why some believe and some don’t.
You said: by eschewing causality, libertarianism lacks explanatory power. And in the absence of explanatory power, it is irrational to the core.
Stopping at the point of origin is rational. How could you go further?
You asked: Where does the Bible teach the will is free in the libertarian sense?
Bible says we have wills and make choices. On this we agree. We also agree that the will is free. We disagree on how to define choices, wills and freedom. But my definition makes the most sense. So mines the biblical one.
Try if you would like. Please explain what our ability to choose freely means.
You quoted Proverbs: the heart of the king is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord, He turns it whichever way He wishes.
Water isn’t pushed in one direction or another, but rather its course is altered. God controls things by knowing how we will react under this or that circumstance and choosing the circumstances to put us in.
You said: in affirming total depravity at first, he is affirming compatibilist freedom
Why do you say that? You didn’t interact with my point about choosing between evil options.
God bless,
Dan
A few things here.
First, JC does not link to "Why I Am Not A Calvinist", I do. I started the blog and designed it. JC joined later as a contributor. I do not necessarily agree with all of any of the books or sites I link to, though I do think Walls and Dongell do a good job describing the absurdities involved in holding to compatibilism. I recently did a post that addressed this issue to some degree, and JC's post was an attempt at clarification due to some of the interaction that post generated. Here is the link:
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/struggling-with-regrets.html
I would also be interested in knowing how you would answer the questions posed at this follow-up post from your deterministic perspective:
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/got-free-will.html
I would especially like for one of you guys to address the arguments I made in my post "Does Regeneration Precede Faith?" I have yet to see any Calvinist honestly grapple with the theological and exegetical absurdities your position holds, as described in that post. Maybe one of you will be up to the task? Here is the link:
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/does-regeneration-precede-faith.html
I am sure JC will address your little response with a new post at AP when he gets around to it. I believe he is away for Thanksgiving right now.
In the meantime, I have a quick question for you regarding John 6:44. Do you believe that one can "come" prior to regeneration? If not, then I suspect you see the drawing of John 6:44 as a reference to irresistible regeneration. Is that the case? Would you object to an interpretive translation along these lines:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me first regenerates them [gives them life]"?
I just want to be sure I understand your interpretation before I make any further comments.
BTW, JC's post was pretty benign. It was just a description of what Arminians believe concerning prevenient grace and free will. He did not personally attack any Calvinists. I wonder, then, why you felt the need to poke fun of his name, call him a "cherry picker", "wide eyed" etc. Is that the way you guys generally do things around here?
God Bless,
Ben
"Drawing would be the equivalent of the Father teaching, not the student’s hearing and learning. One is an action on the part of the Father, the other us. All are taught, those who learn, come… This helps explain why some believe and some don’t."
This is a basic exegetical error in interpreting John 6. The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus is quoting the Prophet Isaiah. The quote comes from Is. 54:13, which is in the midst of a passage on the renewed creation and covenant. Like other passages in the prophets (Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27), it is thus speaking about regeneration, not a preaching of the gospel which we must then decide upon. Thus, those who are "taught of God" are the regenerate.
I covered this here:
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2007/08/john-626-66-part-two.html
"Bible says we have wills and make choices. On this we agree. We also agree that the will is free. We disagree on how to define choices, wills and freedom. But my definition makes the most sense. So mines the biblical one."
So, in other words, "my definition makes the most sense" = philosophical argumentation. Thus, you don't actually derive your defn. from the Bible but from speculative philosophy.
[A speculative philosophy, I might add, that came from and presupposed the pagan Greek form-matter dialectic.]
Dear Mr. Belvedere,
Funny article. I lost count of all the logical fallacies you employed. First of all, you completely misrepresent what I believe in several places (most notably the idea that God has to give grace in order to convict anyone, which I stated nothing about and do not believe), then proceed to build erroneous and superficial arguments on top of your mistaken premises. I've issued a response exposing the errors you employ more fully. But since you are so eager to attack Synergism, then I issue you and the rest of the members of Triablogue The Challenge to Reformed Theology by Scriptural Fact, and invite you to respond to it publicly.
Why does reading Thibodaux's response remind me of Dave Armstrong's tone?
Dear Sinner Saint,
Regarding John 6:44-45:
My point was that drawing correlates to teaching, not learning. I couldn't tell if you agreed with me or not, but it seems that you may have.
However, you bring up another point. The quotation in the OT relates to the new covenant which involves regeneration.
I don't disagree. Whether we call drawing "peri-regenerational" or the beginnings of regeneration is not a big deal to me. I tend to think of prevenient grace as the beginnings of regeneration. I think Arminius taught this as well:
Arminius on Regeneration
The real issue is not what it's called, but rather is it irresistible or resistible. When God is bringing someone into the new covenant, do they have a choice? I think they do.
Me: Bible says we have wills and make choices...my definition makes the most sense
Thee: So, in other words, "my definition makes the most sense" = philosophical argumentation.
The bible uses the terms choice and will. They should be defined, right? If your calling trying to understand what the bible means when it says choice "philosophical argumentation" then I suppose that's me. I am trying to understand what the bible is saying. I don't see how compatiblism is any different.
God Bless,
Dan
Dan,
"I tend to think of prevenient grace as the beginnings of regeneration."
Well, I think that you're reading that into the text. Isaiah's passage suggests that all these who are "taught" are already fully regenerate and in the kingdom:
All your sons will be taught of the Lord;
And the well-being of your sons will be great.
In righteousness you will be established;
You will be far from oppression, for you will not fear;
And from terror, for it will not come near you.
(Is. 54:13-14)
"The bible uses the terms choice and will. They should be defined, right? If your calling trying to understand what the bible means when it says choice "philosophical argumentation" then I suppose that's me. I am trying to understand what the bible is saying. I don't see how compatiblism is any different."
My point was that since both the Compatibilist and the Libertarian can claim "free choice" in the Bible, the only way a Libertarian can claim that the Bible definitely teaches his view is either:
a.) to show that the Bible gives a libertarian defn. of free-will
or
b.) to argue from (contested) philosophical arguments that the only true view of freedom is of the libertarian sort.
It has been admitted by several Arminians that the Bible nowhere defines the freedom of the will in a libertarian sense. So, you must therefore rely upon these debatable philosophical arguments to eliminate compatibilism.
The Calvinist, on the other hand, relies first on exegetical arguments, and then and only then, turns to philosophical arguments in support.
Your brother in Christ,
S&S
Thanks for the backup Dan. S&S, nothing in Isaiah necessitates that all those who are taught are already sons, but that those who are sons are taught.
Libertarian free will isn't difficult to derive from scripture, one example I cited in my defense is the fact that God is faithful to make a way of escape from every temptation (1 Cor 10:13), yet not all Christians take advantage of such provision in every case. If Compatibilistic free will were biblical, then any sin I commit I inevitably had to 'freely choose' to commit because it is the stronger of my inclinations at the moment, whereas scripture tells us plainly that God won't allow us to be tempted above what we are able to bear. If I was unable to make a choice contrary to my inclination to sin, then I was indeed tempted beyond what I was able to bear. The inherent sinful nature rendering the opposite end of the spectrum (unlimited free will) untenable as well, we are left with the alternative of limited libertarian free will.
What is "limited libertarian" in "limited libertarian freewill" supposed to mean? I mean besides just trying to have your cake and eat it too, of course.
It's easy to infer from my statement above; but if you can figure out what 'poisoning the well' means I might spell it out for you.
JC said:
---
It's easy to infer from my statement above
---
Infering contradictory concepts is beyond my mental capacity. When I can envision a round square, I'll get back to you.
"S&S, nothing in Isaiah necessitates that all those who are taught are already sons, but that those who are sons are taught."
But again, the teaching has to do with regeneration. [If you want proof, look at my previous comment.]
You can say that this regeneration is "pre-regeneration" (i.e. prevenient grace), but then you have that part of the verse which says:
"In righteousness you will be established;"
which tells me that these people aren't being simply asked by God to repent but that they have repented and have "righteousness".
"I cited in my defense is the fact that God is faithful to make a way of escape from every temptation (1 Cor 10:13), yet not all Christians take advantage of such provision in every case."
Or perhaps that's because the regenerate sinner has two natures fighting each other.
Of course, if LFW were the case, we should be "able to bear" anything since we could just decide not to do it.
If you don't understand it, how can you be so sure that it's contradictory? I advise you to read 2 Peter 2:12.
limited libertarian free will
LOL LOL LOL
I needed a good belly laugh!
One of the hardest parts when talking to an Arminian is that they either define words completely differently or when it has been shown that their theology is lacking they make up new words.
It looks like J.C. is implying that you are a false teacher?
Dear Sinner Saint,
Thee: Isaiah's passage suggests that all these who are "taught" are already fully regenerate and in the kingdom:
All your sons will be taught of the Lord;
And the well-being of your sons will be great.
In righteousness you will be established;
You will be far from oppression, for you will not fear;
And from terror, for it will not come near you.
(Is. 54:13-14)
I am not sure how you reach that conclusion. Their “well-being” or “peace”? That’s part of the 1,000 years of peace. In righteousness you will be established? That’s talking about the restoration of National Israel and their return to God. But not all will be saved, else there will be no army to fight against at the end of the 1,000 years. I think the difference is the "you" and your children. Hum… I suppose a Dispensationalist and a Covenant Theologian are going to look at this passage quite differently. But I really don’t see this as saying all who are taught are fully regenerate and would need further explanation.
Thee: The Calvinist, on the other hand, relies first on exegetical arguments, and then and only then, turns to philosophical arguments in support.
Fair enough. Please define our ability to choose freely based on scripture. If not, you will receive your membership card for the “philosophical argumentation” club in 10 business days.
Dan
S & S wrote:
“My point was that since both the Compatibilist and the Libertarian can claim "free choice" in the Bible, the only way a Libertarian can claim that the Bible definitely teaches his view is either:
a.) to show that the Bible gives a libertarian defn. of free-will
or
b.) to argue from (contested) philosophical arguments that the only true view of freedom is of the libertarian sort.
It has been admitted by several Arminians that the Bible nowhere defines the freedom of the will in a libertarian sense. So, you must therefore rely upon these debatable philosophical arguments to eliminate compatibilism.”
S & S presents a false dilemma here: either the libertarian presents a definition of free will from scripture itself, OR, the libertarian argues from “contested philosophical arguments.” What is left out is option (c) an abductive argument for the libertarian conception of free will based upon scripture and common sense.
If we find ourselves with a car that is not starting, we launch into abductive logic, which means we come up with differing hypotheses and see which one best explains the situation. Is the problem the battery? That would be one explanation. Is the problem the starter? That would be another explanation. Etc. Etc. We engage in this kind of explanation all the time in common everyday life when we are seeking the best explanation of the data.
It is significant that in response, J.C. wrote:
“Libertarian free will isn't difficult to derive from scripture, one example I cited in my defense is the fact that God is faithful to make a way of escape from every temptation (1 Cor 10:13), yet not all Christians take advantage of such provision in every case. If Compatibilistic free will were biblical, then any sin I commit I inevitably had to 'freely choose' to commit because it is the stronger of my inclinations at the moment, whereas scripture tells us plainly that God won't allow us to be tempted above what we are able to bear. If I was unable to make a choice contrary to my inclination to sin, then I was indeed tempted beyond what I was able to bear. The inherent sinful nature rendering the opposite end of the spectrum (unlimited free will) untenable as well, we are left with the alternative of limited libertarian free will.”
J.C. is unwittingly presenting an abductive argument (though he may not know the term), in this case the best explanation of the 1 Cor. 10:13 verse and the nature of the temptation of believers is a libertarian free will conception. J. C. is not suggesting that scripture provides a ready definition of “free will” (a) nor is J. C. engaging in “contested philosophical explanations”. Rather, he presents a phenomena, in this case temptation, and then suggests that the best explanation for the phenomena is a libertarian version of free will.
In talking with lots of people when it comes to free will, and observing people’s actual practices, the vast majority of people, believe in what they would call or describe as “free will.” And the concept is not difficult, it means simply that in a given situation a person faces multiple alternative options/possibilities/opportunities, and he/she can actualize one of these possibilities and exclude the others by his action of choice (and vice versa, he/she may do one action and refrain from doing the other considered actions, vice versa). I believe that the best and most commonsensical term for this phenomena is to call it as do the vast majority of sane and ordinary persons: having a choice.
Now the person who believes that all events are predetermined by some factor (whether biology, the brain, genetics, or in the case of Calvinist determinists, God), believes that in each instance while we may have believed that we had multiple options/opportunities to choose from when making a choice, in reality, we will only actualize the action which had been predetermined for us. All of this is simple common sense and requires no advanced philosophical training or arguments. I should also mention for those familiar with logic, that the deterministic position includes within in what is called a universal negative. If all events are predetermined by whatever factor the determinist believes in, then in no situation, do we ever have what is commonly referred to as a choice. We may do what we want to do (an element that compatibilists emphasize), but we cannot do otherwise than we do (an element that libertarians emphasize).
Neither libertarian nor compatibilist definition of free will is explicitly presented by scripture (i.e., there is no verse that says “libertarianism is true,” “libertarianism if false,” “compatibilism is true,” or “compatibilism if false.” So S & S is correct that (a) is no option for the libertarian (and it is not an option for the compatibilist as well).
My suggestion is to take each theory of free will and see which one best explains the data of scripture. In order to avoid a dueling scriptures scenario (the compatibilist presents verses they believe are best explained by compatibilism; and the libertarian does likewise), I suggest that we seriously consider the nature of the compatibilist theory (that it necessarily contains a universal negative: if exhaustive determinism is true, then there are no choices as commonly understood). And how does one refute a universal negative? With a clear and convincing instance of a counter example which then refutes the universal negative. And it only takes one good counter example to do so. Fortunately for the libertarian there are lots of them both in scripture and in daily everyday life.
J.C. presents only one, but a good one. When the true believer is tempted, he is facing a choice between (1) choosing to give in to the temptation, or (2) choosing to resist the temptation by availing himself/herself of the “way of escape” promised by God (1 Cor. 10:13 promises the believer that with every temptation God will provide a way of escape by which the temptation can be avoided. Now the advocate of the libertarian view says that in order for this temptation to exist, as stated by the text, both options/opportunities must be present and available for the believer (he/she can either resist by means of the way provided by God; or he/she will choose to succumb to the temptation). Put another way, unless a choice as normally understood is present, the 1 Cor. 10: 13 passage makes no sense. But if a choice is actually present, then in that situation determinism is not true, as the person has both the ability and the opportunity to do otherwise (if he resists the temptation he also could have given into the temptation; if he succumbs to the temptation he also could have resisted the temptation). This is all common sensical and again requires no advanced philosophy.
On the other hand, assume that exhaustive determinism is true. In that case, while the believe may believe that he can do either action (resist or succumb), in reality, he has no choice. If God predetermined that he would resist the temptation [(2) above], then he will resist the temptation and it is impossible that he succumb to that temptation in that situation. And if God predetermined that he would not resist the temptation [(1) above], that he would succumb to the temptation, then it is impossible that he resist that temptation in that particular situation. He will do either (1) or (2), if his action is predetermined and he cannot do otherwise (if he is predetermined to do (1) in that situation then it is impossible for him to do (2) in that situation [and vice versa]. Most Christians, especially those who have common sense and are not arguing for some philosophical notion, believe that when the temptation comes (both options are available, they do in fact have a choice, either option which they can actualize). So most Christians who are completely unaware of the arguments between libertarians and compatibilists do in fact hold and live according to the libertarian view. Only those Christians committed to determinism, argue against the ability to do otherwise and claim that we can and only do what we were predetermined to do.
There is a further problem with the deterministic explanation of free will when applied to a verse like 1 Cor. 10:13: if determinism is true then God’s Word the bible is a lie. How so? Because if we are predetermined to give into temptation by God, then when we think that we can avoid the temptation by availing ourselves of the way of escape provided by God, in reality, in situations where God predetermined that we give into sin, we cannot do so, it is impossible for us to do so. So God says one thing in his Word, but then predetermines that it be impossible for us to take God at his Word, to trust in God’s Word. Most Christians will see the problems with determinism when it is applied to the nature and reality of temptation and they will reject determinism/compatibilism in favor of the common sense view that we have choices when it comes to actual temptations. So when it comes to the best explanation for dealing with temptation and 1 Cor. 10:13 I believe it is clear that the libertarian view of free will is the best explanation for this data. And if that is true, since exhaustive determinism includes the universal negative that there are no choices, then exhaustive determinism and its universal negative which denies the reality of choices is false.
J. C. brought up only one instance where the compatibilist view of free will breaks down when seeking the best explanation of a particular scripture text. And these examples can be multiplied. And not only are these examples of choices (which negate the universal negative present in determinism) present throughout scripture, they are also present in innumerable instances of our daily lives. We face innumerable situations where we can and do actualize one option/opportunity/possibility while negating others at the same time. This is such a common experience of all mankind, that determinists will always be forced to argue against common sense and common experience and scriptural instances of choice as well. This is one of the things that convinced me that Calvinism and its determinism is both unbiblical, contrary to common sense and good reasoning, and downright false.
The determinist of course will cling doggedly to his determinism over common sense and common experience and scriptural instances of choice and be forced to reinterpret all of the contrary evidence. Some may choose to engage in this denial of the facts, I do not make this choice.
Robert
I went back and examined Bernabe’s initial post and noticed something that merits comment. He wrote:
“By the way, in this post I've responded to Thibodaux's own statements. Additionally, (and more importantly), for Thibodaux to be taken seriously he needs to provide an argument for LFW from the Bible.”
Bernabe the argument for the reality “for LFW from the Bible” is very simple. Compatibilism precludes any instances of choice, this is the fatal universal negative present in any view that espouses exhaustive determinism. Any bible verse that clearly presents the reality of choices refutes this universal negative. So in asking “for an argument for LFW from the Bible”, one would need only to show reasonable and clear instances of situations in scripture in which an actual choice is present. Thibodaux has already provided a good and clear one, the nature of temptation and the 1 Cor. 10:13 passage. And there are many, many others.
Bernabe also wrote:
“I notice Thibodaux has been foaming at the mouth so profusely that he's dehydrated himself. But if he hasn't collapsed yet from his own system's internal instability, I'll deliver the finishing blows later when I find time.”
I will be looking forward to this effort by you Bernabe, when people argue against common sense it can be quite humorous and amusing. Atheists and materialists often argue against realities that the rest of us know to be true and it gets very funny at times. Example - the materialist atheist argues against the soul, argues against the existence of the mind and immaterial reality, since according to his worldview nothing immaterial exists. But when this materialist atheist begins speaking and presenting his arguments for the unreality of the immaterial mind, what reality is he necessarily involved in? Why he is using his mind of course, the very entity that he claims does not exist. And he will attempt to marshal arguments using the laws of logic against the unreality of the immaterial mind. But these laws of logic are themselves immaterial realities are they not? So he will argue against the existence of an immaterial mind using his immaterial mind and the immaterial laws of logic! I find that highly amusing.
Bernabe you claim that you are going to be delivering the “finishing blows later when I find time.” This indicates that you are making choices including when you will have the time to deliver these supposed finishing blows, which arguments you will choose to use when you deliver these finishing blows, and of course you will be choosing the words that you will use to convey these devastating and finishing blows. So you will be engaging in multiple choices when you argue against the reality of free will/having choices. I am looking forward to seeing that, it will be very amusing. Of course you can simply assert your view and claim that your every word and argument was predetermined by God anyway and so whatever you come up with when you deliver these finishing blows will involve actions all of which you could not have done otherwise. But I do not buy that as I know that you engage in lots of choices just like all of the rest of us, choices that in every instance show your determinism to be false.
Robert
S & S presents a false dilemma here: either the libertarian presents a definition of free will from scripture itself, OR, the libertarian argues from “contested philosophical arguments.” What is left out is option (c) an abductive argument for the libertarian conception of free will based upon scripture and common sense.
This is only a way of begging the question. We've also seen Robert employ this line of argument in times past. One would hope he could come up with some new material.
For if it is based upon Scripture, it will, in fact, require an exegetical argument from Scripture. There simply is no text of Scripture that can be construed to teach libertarian freedom without making reading it back into the text. Libertarian freedom by definition and by the admission of several Libertarians who have commented in threads here teaches that there are no sufficient causes/reasons lying behind the choices of individuals. Since the Bible teaches exactly the opposite, Robert is left to an "adductive argument" that would redefine libertarian freedom if he wishes to base it upon the Bible, for when the Bible says that men are led astray by their own evil desires and when the Bible says that God turns men's hearts like channels of water, it directly contradicts libertarian action theory. We've been over this with him before. He just repeats himself as if never answered. This is because he has no exegetical argument to offer. He has consistently and rather tiresomely grown quiet when pressed.
2. "Common sense" only begs the question as to what the "common sense" answer will render. What non-arbitrary epistemic warrant can Robert provide to show that "common sense" results in LFW being true? Robert is left to his own autonomy, not the Bible, pun intended. As we have in the past seen in Robert's own posts, his "common sense" answers are used to blunt the force of Scripture or simply ignore it. His "abductive argument" is virtually identical to the Roman Catholic rule of faith when it cashes out.
Further "common sense" is ultimately an appeal to intuitions. LFW is prized for its intuitions,not because of its exegetical foundation. This is frankly admitted by representatives of Arminianism like Walls and Dongell, and Libertarians don't generally frame their arguments for it on Scripture. S&S is merely repeating what they have themselves written. Here's the direct quote from their own work:
“…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.” By their own admission, then they RELY on philosophy, not Scripture as an ultimate basis for their conjecture.
If Compatibilistic free will were biblical, then any sin I commit I inevitably had to 'freely choose' to commit because it is the stronger of my inclinations at the moment, whereas scripture tells us plainly that God won't allow us to be tempted above what we are able to bear. If I was unable to make a choice contrary to my inclination to sin, then I was indeed tempted beyond what I was able to bear.
Of course,the problem with the argument, in addtion to the fact that no exegesis of the text is provided, is that it assumes that if a person does not follow their inclination to sin, it thereby means that their strongest inclination was to sin, but that, for some unknown reason they chose not to sin. Where is the supporting argument? All J.C. did was beg the question of what it means to not be tempted beyond what we are able to bear. Compatibilistic freedom does not deny that a person is not tempted beyond what they are able to bear, nor does it deny that people possess an inclination to sin when so tempted. If a person's desires are not sufficient reasons, motives, or causes for their sins, upon what basis does God judge the motives of men's hearts justly?
The standard work on Human Nature in its 4Fold State is the book by that name by Thomas Boston. I look forward to Robert and J.C.'s detailed rebuttal of it.
In talking with lots of people when it comes to free will, and observing people’s actual practices, the vast majority of people, believe in what they would call or describe as “free will.”
This is not an exegetical argument. This is an argument from intuition. I thought Robert said that the argument provided would be based upon both Scripture and "common sense."
All of this is simple common sense and requires no advanced philosophical training or arguments.
Walls and Dongell wrote: …It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.
So, since we're taking W&D at their own word and Robert has confirmed them for us in his own argument, what exactly is his point? That there IS an exegetical foundation for LFW?
Notice that despite the farrago of words, Robert has provided us with NOTHING, not a single exegetical argument for LFW here. If he has an exegetical argument, then let him present it.
Any bible verse that clearly presents the reality of choices refutes this universal negative.
Notice that Robert simply begs the question yet again. "Choice"and LFW are the issues at hand. They are hardly synonymous. If a motive is a sufficient cause for an act according to the Bible, then the person espousing the false doctrine is the Libertarian. The Bible, not "common sense" should determine, pun intended, our action theory.
This post has been removed by the author.
Incidentally, the point of 1 Corinthians 10:14 is not to help us conclude that we have libertarian freedom. That would be an astounding piece of eisegesis. The point is that God sets limits to human temptations and gives His people the ability to endure them. It is 100 percent silent on why a person chooses to give in to temptation and another does not.
The logic of our interlocuters seems to be, "If I desire to do x and I do not do x, then it stands to reason I have LFW." That's a nonsequitur. If one's actions are indeterminate and freedom is contracausal, then how is the Libertarian able to ascertain what the prevailing desire was? Is the argument that two competing desires are "equal?" If so, where is the supporting argument from Scripture?
And what is the point of temptation to sin? One answer is to expose the level of maturity and immaturity. If we do not endure, then our immaturity has been demonstrated. If we do, then our maturity has been demonstrated. Another is to remind us that we are dependent on God, not ourselves. The Libertarian, particularly the one trying to derive a theory of LFW from this text, moves the focus of the text away from the faithfulness and grace of God to the power of the will of man. The point of the text is that we can endure by depending on God. The purpose of the text is to teach us that, if we desire to do we endure trials and temptations successfully by looking not to the power of the will but to the grace of God. The focus of the Arminian is, yet again, working on the tacit assumption that grace is quantitative, not qualitative. Where is the supporting argument? The way of escape is what enables us to endure successfully. If we don't want to endure it, we won't.
As to Robert's ramblings about exhaustive determinism, when he gets the difference between certainty (decrees) and causality (providence) he'll have finally demonstrated he understands the issues involved. We've been over this before.
Dear S&S,
You can say that this regeneration is "pre-regeneration" (i.e. prevenient grace), but then you have that part of the verse which says:
"In righteousness you will be established;"
which tells me that these people aren't being simply asked by God to repent but that they have repented and have "righteousness".
Which is beside the point, there is nothing in the passage to indicate that their regeneration comes before their turning to God, nor does Jeremiah 31 indicate any such thing. Ezekiel 36 that you also cite does not indicate when in the stage of salvation one will be given a new heart and spirit, but chapter 18 clarifies it a bit,
"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways," says the Lord GOD. "Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 18:30-31
"I cited in my defense is the fact that God is faithful to make a way of escape from every temptation (1 Cor 10:13), yet not all Christians take advantage of such provision in every case."
Or perhaps that's because the regenerate sinner has two natures fighting each other.
Of course we have two natures fighting each other, but if our free wills are Compatibilistic, then if we do sin, there really wasn't any other alternative, and therefore we had no real effective means of escape as promised. Nice try, but I have to give the gold for funny to Gene's comment:
"The point is that God sets limits to human temptations and gives His people the ability to endure them. It is 100 percent silent on why a person chooses to give in to temptation and another does not."
You just know for a fact that the reason can't be LFW. Right....
Of course, if LFW were the case, we should be "able to bear" anything since we could just decide not to do it.
And you obviously missed what I wrote in my article about what free will is not. Oh well.
And Mr. Belvedere, I'm very much looking forward to your new 'series;' though this time perhaps you should build your case against me based on things I actually wrote. Just watch your 'finishing blows,' I'm very ticklish.
I asked the following comment which has so far been ignored directly, but answered indirectly by saint and sinner:
In the meantime, I have a quick question for you regarding John 6:44. Do you believe that one can "come" prior to regeneration? If not, then I suspect you see the drawing of John 6:44 as a reference to irresistible regeneration. Is that the case? Would you object to an interpretive translation along these lines:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me first regenerates them [gives them life]"?
S&S later said [concerning the contention that John 6:44 had reference to resistible prevenient grac]:
This is a basic exegetical error in interpreting John 6. The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus is quoting the Prophet Isaiah. The quote comes from Is. 54:13, which is in the midst of a passage on the renewed creation and covenant. Like other passages in the prophets (Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27), it is thus speaking about regeneration, not a preaching of the gospel which we must then decide upon. Thus, those who are "taught of God" are the regenerate.
So it would seem that the drawing of John 6:44 refers to regeneration in the Calvinist scheme. To say it refers to something less is to concede prevenient grace, which the Calvinist will not do.
So it is quite resonable to understand Jn. 6:44, in Calvinism, as saying:
No one can come to be unless the Father who sent Me regenerates them [i.e. first gives them life].
I assume that S&S would also equate "come" with "believe" as most Calvinists do. So we could further define the passage as:
No one can believe in Me unless the Father who sent Me regenerates them [i.e. first gives them life].
We could then simplify the teaching by saying, "no one can come unless the Father first gives them life."
Therefore, the giving of life, according to Calvinism, must precede coming or believing.
I dare say that no Calvinist would object at this point.
What then did Jesus mean when He said in John 5:40:
"...you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."
Here Jesus plainly says that "coming" precedes the giving of life. This flatly contradicts the Calvinists interpretation of John 6:44 and renders such an interpretation impossible.
In view of John 5:40, the drawing of John 6:44 can have no reference to regeneration.
God Bless,
Ben
Gene Bridges wrote:
“This is only a way of begging the question. We've also seen Robert employ this line of argument in times past. One would hope he could come up with some new material.”
I keep telling people that Jesus rose from the dead and that is one of my primary arguments should I stop employing that one and come up with something new? The only reason you don’t like the argument is that you have no answer for it and it refutes your determinism. Oh well.
“There simply is no text of Scripture that can be construed to teach libertarian freedom without making reading it back into the text.”
The argument is so simple Gene but you refuse to deal with it, and you cannot deal with it. We ask what is meant by the term choice as ordinarily understood. Well that is relatively easy, a choice presupposes that a person can actualize one of two or more alternatives in a given situation (e.g., I can choose to respond to Gene or I can choose to refrain from responding to Gene, both of these alternatives are available to me and I actualize the option of choosing to respond this time). Call that simple and ordinary definition of choice, (X). If we understand the nature of exhaustive determinism we will see that it entails that in no situation will (X) ever be present (this is because in each and every situation if my every action is predetermined by God, then I can only do the action that I was predetermined to do in a given situation, it would then be impossible for me to have a choice as ordinarily understood). So then we go to some bible passages and exegete them properly and ask when doing so, is (X) present? If (X) is present, if choices are real and present, then everything is not predetermined and exhaustive determinism if false (note, I do not need to show that no events are predetermined for this argument to work, I only need to show the presence of (X) in the bible; the bible is not a philosophy textbook and does not provide definitions of terms in the free will debate, it does however present clear cases of the presence of (X)/the reality of choices, hence determinism is false).
“Libertarian freedom by definition and by the admission of several Libertarians who have commented in threads here teaches that there are no sufficient causes/reasons lying behind the choices of individuals. Since the Bible teaches exactly the opposite”
Ok, Gene I’ll bite, where does the bible teach that all of our choices are necessitated by sufficient causes? In fact where in the bible do we even find the term sufficient causes? That is your argument, since you claim the bible teaches it, so where is this term present anywhere in scripture? Where does the bible teach that all of our actions are necessitated by sufficient causes?
Got an exegetical argument for that Gene?
“Robert is left to an "adductive argument" that would redefine libertarian freedom if he wishes to base it upon the Bible, for when the Bible says that men are led astray by their own evil desires and when the Bible says that God turns men's hearts like channels of water, it directly contradicts libertarian action theory.”
How does this contradict libertarian action theory? I can grant that on occasion God intervenes and takes over a situation so that choices are eliminated or suspended (ask Nebuchadnezzar when he was determined to be eating grass whether or not God has that kind of control when He wants to use it, and yet even for Nebuchadnezzar that condition was temporary as he was restored to his normal condition in which he made choices as a human person later on). But even in granting that on occasion free will is limited or suspended, this does not entail that under no circumstances do we ever have choices.
You see Gene that is what you have got to prove to maintain your exhaustive determinism, that we never ever experience choices (we can never do either option that faces us in a situation we can only do the one we were predetermined to do, or so says your determinism).
“2. "Common sense" only begs the question as to what the "common sense" answer will render.”
Gene are you against old fashioned horse sense? Do you believe that we can never trust our intuitions whatsoever?
“Further "common sense" is ultimately an appeal to intuitions.”
And what is wrong with appropriately appealing to intuitions at times? When a presuppositionalist appeals to the transcendental argument for the existence of God and argues from the reality of laws of logic, isn’t that an effective and useful appeal to intuitions? Aren’t we appealing to the nonbelievers intuitions that he has in fact used the laws of logic though he never justifies them with some sort of argument? Are there not some human experiences and realities that do not require justification via arguments? Have you read Plantinga on basic beliefs? Do you disagree with Plantinga on this? Part of the problem for determinists like yourself, is that the belief in free will is a basic belief (people just know that they have choices, and most people require no argument for this intuition as it is one of their basic beliefs). As a basic belief it is something thoroughly ingrained in people’s thinking, just as obvious and ingrained as their belief that they have a mind, that their thoughts are really their thoughts, that other minds exist, etc. etc. Is the apostle Paul wrong when he appeals to the intuitions of nonbelievers that they all know God according to Romans 1? Oh, I see, sometimes appeals to intuition are legitimate, unless that argument is against determinism.
“If a person's desires are not sufficient reasons, motives, or causes for their sins, upon what basis does God judge the motives of men's hearts justly?”
Gene you don’t really believe that our desires always necessitate our actions do you? Assume that you have the desire to please God, does that desire always necessitate that you always please God? Or can you freely choose to go against that desire when you sin? If desires necessitate as you claim, and a Christian has the desire to please God, then he/she will never sin because they will always act in accordance with this necessitating desire to please God. And when you sin Gene, was your sin necessitated, you could not have done otherwise? Or was your sin chosen by you when you also could have chosen not to sin?
“This is not an exegetical argument. This is an argument from intuition. I thought Robert said that the argument provided would be based upon both Scripture and "common sense."”
My argument is based on common sense and scripture. What is the common sense, ordinary meaning for the word choice? Call it (X). OK, then exegete some scriptures and ask the question: is (X) present? If (X) is present, then choice as ordinarily understood is present, and if choice as ordinarily understood is present, then the reality of choices is established (unless of course God is playing games with us and presenting scriptures and situations where (X) is present when in fact (X) is never present, that would be very deceptive and I do not believe that God is playing games with us, scripture presents situations as they really were, and that includes situations where real choices were present). And if the reality of choices as ordinarily understood is established and present in scripture itself, then exhaustive determinism is false. And that is an argument from both common sense and exegesis of scripture.
“Walls and Dongell wrote: …It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.”
Walls and Dongell have a point here: and it is again common sense. They are saying that if people intuitively and universally and commonly experience decisions in which they can choose between alternative courses of action. Then this experience will be more certain and trustworthy for people than any contrary theory. Analogy, I believe that I have experienced consciousness for many years now. Daniel Dennett comes along and in his books argues that my conscious experience is not real. I would be foolish and irrational to take his theory over my years of experiencing consciousness. Similarly, people have been experiencing various choices as long as they have been alive, then some determinist like Gene comes along and says Oh no, you thought you had a choice but in reality your every action has been predetermined by God. Most people again using common sense are going to take their years of experiencing the reality of choice over Gene’s deterministic theory. If you have an intuition over a span of years and some one comes up with some crack pot theory that contradicts your years of personal experience, the rational and common sense thing to do is to see the theory as false and your intuition corresponds with reality.
“So, since we're taking W&D at their own word and Robert has confirmed them for us in his own argument, what exactly is his point? That there IS an exegetical foundation for LFW?”
Apparently Gene just does not understand my point. How do we ordinarily define the word choice? Does this ordinary definition include the notion of choosing from among various alternative possibilities each of which could be actualized if chosen (call it X)? OK, with that simple and common sense notion of the nature of choice in mind, exegete some bible verses and see if (X) is present in the bible situations? If it is never present, then determinism is true (note I said never because exhaustive determinism would universally preclude choices as ordinarily understood), if it is sometimes present, then libertarian free will is true (note to maintain the reality of choice I do not have to show that in every instance choice is present, I need only show that sometimes choices are present, and yet if choices are sometimes present then exhaustive determinism is false).
Gene do you believe that we ever experience choices as ordinarily understood or not?
“Notice that Robert simply begs the question yet again. "Choice" and LFW are the issues at hand. They are hardly synonymous.”
Actually, choice and LFW are synonymous in some sense, I have yet to see an advocate of LFW that did not believe that choices as ordinarily understood are real and experienced by us at least on some occasions.
“If a motive is a sufficient cause for an act according to the Bible, then the person espousing the false doctrine is the Libertarian. The Bible, not "common sense" should determine, pun intended, our action theory.”
Gene did God have to create the world? Was his action of creating the world necessitated by a sufficient reason? Or did God act as a personal agent, choosing to create the world based upon reasons, when he also could have chosen otherwise/chosen not to create the world? And if you admit that God’s intentional actions are not necessitated, then how can you claim that agent causation which means a person doing his actions for reasons (though those reasons do not necessitate the actions) is not a valid conception of action theory? And that theory of agent causation is the one held by people like Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Stewart Goetz, Francis Schaeffer, C. S. Lewis, John Searle, Fred Schueler, etc. etc. And by the way, I just read in Antony Flew’s new book, where he discusses how he used to be a compatibilist but now sees that compatibilism is false.
The bible does determine my action theory as it presents clear instances of the reality of choice. A reality that could not exist if your exhaustive determinism were true. Since the bible and my years of intuition present the reality of choice and your determinism contradicts both the bible and intuition I throw out your theory as false and hold onto reality. You can keep choosing to defend your determinism but you will fail as you cannot argue against reality (in this case that at least some times we have choices) and win.
Robert
Gene Bridges just cannot handle the most simple point as his comments about the nature of temptation demonstrate. He says about temptation that:
“And what is the point of temptation to sin? One answer is to expose the level of maturity and immaturity. If we do not endure, then our immaturity has been demonstrated. If we do, then our maturity has been demonstrated. Another is to remind us that we are dependent on God, not ourselves.”
And how are “we dependent upon God, not ourselves”, by choosing to trust Him, right?
But if we/believers choose to trust Him, we/believers also could (and sometimes do) choose not to trust Him, right? Again, this demonstrates the reality of choice. And if choices are real then Bridges’ determinism is false.
“The Libertarian, particularly the one trying to derive a theory of LFW from this text, moves the focus of the text away from the faithfulness and grace of God to the power of the will of man. The point of the text is that we can endure by depending on God. The purpose of the text is to teach us that, if we desire to do we endure trials and temptations successfully by looking not to the power of the will but to the grace of God.”
Again, “if we desire to do” is a conditional statement referring to a CHOICE. If we desire to do so we can also desire not to do so. Bridges seems completely unable to see that even his own statements presuppose the reality of choices. And again, if these choices are real then his cherished determinism is false.
“The way of escape is what enables us to endure successfully. If we don't want to endure it, we won't.”
Actually this statement is inaccurate and yet again shows Bridges being completely oblivious to the reality of choice when it comes to the temptation described in 1 Cor. 10:13. He says that “the way of escape is what enables us to endure successfully.” That is not quite right, God may (and does, according to this verse) provide a way of escape from temptation, but if we do not choose to avail ourselves of the way that is provided, if we do not make that choice, then it will not work. And again the presence and reality of a choice is present in the room like a 600 lb gorilla that Bridges just cannot see.
What Bridges seems oblivious to is the simple reality that 1 Cor. 10:13 is a promise about temptation intended for the believer: that when we encounter them the Lord will provide a way of escape, a way to resist the temptation. But that provision of a way of escape will not allow us to resist the temptation unless we choose to avail ourselves of that way of escape. If we don’t make that choice, then the way of escape provided by God is not going to lead us to resist the temptation. The whole New Testament is full of exhortations and commands that involve choices. And if the right choices are not made then things will not work out as they should (e.g. Christian husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church; if we do not choose to do this negative consequences will follow; ever seen a Christian marriage where the husband did not love his wife in a Christ-like way?).
Robert
Actually this statement is inaccurate and yet again shows Bridges being completely oblivious to the reality of choice when it comes to the temptation described in 1 Cor. 10:13. He says that “the way of escape is what enables us to endure successfully.” That is not quite right, God may (and does, according to this verse) provide a way of escape from temptation, but if we do not choose to avail ourselves of the way that is provided, if we do not make that choice, then it will not work. And again the presence and reality of a choice is present in the room like a 600 lb gorilla that Bridges just cannot see.
Once again, Robert is neglecting the issue. The issue is not the presence of the choice but the faithfullness of God to deliver. I phrased words carefully. If we want to be delievered by the way of escape, then we will do so. If we fail to take that escape, then it is because we do not want to do so. God's faithfulness is upheld, but hte way of escape serves to expose our sinfulness or maturity. Why, Robert, does one person take the way out while another does not? According to LFW, there is no sufficient reason. You have elsehwere denied such an action theory, so you're playing with
definitions to arrive at yours. It's ad hoc.
Again, “if we desire to do” is a conditional statement referring to a CHOICE. If we desire to do so we can also desire not to do so. Bridges seems completely unable to see that even his own statements presuppose the reality of choices. And again, if these choices are real then his cherished determinism is false.
No, for a determined choice has a suffient cause behind it. Robert is ignoring the argument I'm making. God's decree may predetermine the outcome, but the choice when presented is real and determined, since the means to the end are the choices of the individuals. These choices are determined by a set of sufficient reasons, causes, etc. If not, then Robert must admit that LFW results in uncaused choices, which in his past replies he has denied. Robert's action theory is just ad hocery.
And how are “we dependent upon God, not ourselves”, by choosing to trust Him, right?
This is a classic use of the regressive fallacy. What makes us dependent on God is the qualitative sufficiency of His grace, not our autonomous free will that is free from sufficient causes.
I keep telling people that Jesus rose from the dead and that is one of my primary arguments should I stop employing that one and come up with something new? The only reason you don’t like the argument is that you have no answer for it and it refutes your determinism.
Robert has a short memory of the historical record. We've refuted his argument multiple times while he's gone silent.
Ok, Gene I’ll bite, where does the bible teach that all of our choices are necessitated by sufficient causes? In fact where in the bible do we even find the term sufficient causes?
Look in the archives. I posted that especially for you many weeks ago and you did not respond. Every time Scripture tells us, for example, that when Satan speaks his lies he is speaking from his nature, we have a sufficient reason lying behind his acts. Scripture says we are led astray by our own evil desires. The Bible talks about God judging the motives of men's hearts. The tenth commandment directly addresses coveting which underwrites many sins in the Law.
Elsehwere, you yourself said that the idea that choices are uncaused is absurd and that reasons must ground our choices.
So, the argument I put forth,back then, you stipulated to. So you can't seem to follow your own arguments.
How do we ordinarily define the word choice? Does this ordinary definition include the notion of choosing from among various alternative possibilities each of which could be actualized if chosen (call it X)? OK, with that simple and common sense notion of the nature of choice in mind, exegete some bible verses and see if (X) is present in the bible situations? If it is never present, then determinism is true (note I said never because exhaustive determinism would universally preclude choices as ordinarily understood), if it is sometimes present, then libertarian free will is true (note to maintain the reality of choice I do not have to show that in every instance choice is present, I need only show that sometimes choices are present, and yet if choices are sometimes present then exhaustive determinism is false).
Gene do you believe that we ever experience choices as ordinarily understood or not?
a. Robert is simply engaging in more bare, question begging assertions.
b. He said this argument would be from Scripture and common sense. Where is the exegetical portion?
And if you admit that God’s intentional actions are not necessitated, then how can you claim that agent causation which means a person doing his actions for reasons (though those reasons do not necessitate the actions) is not a valid conception of action theory?
We've been over this before. God having libertarian freedom refers to the fact that nothing in his nature constrains him to do anything,because, as God he is wholly independent. However, it does not mean that His choices are without reference to His character. Against the atheist we say God is simple and thus His ethics and essence are one, against the Euthyphro Dilemma. Against the Arminian, we deny that He can act contrary to His nature. God does not have contracausal freedom, for God cannot sin.
Creaturely freedom is not the freedom of an independent being. It is contingent freedom. Our acts are determined by a complex interaction of internal factors, the mind, the emotions, knowledge, etc. and environmental factors.
The bible does determine my action theory as it presents clear instances of the reality of choice. A reality that could not exist if your exhaustive determinism were true. Since the bible and my years of intuition present the reality of choice and your determinism contradicts both the bible and intuition I throw out your theory as false and hold onto reality.
As we see these are just bare assertions where he equates "choice" with LFW and then talks about his intuitions. I thought he said that he would provide some exegetical foundation? Once again, it's missing, from beginning to end.
What then did Jesus mean when He said in John 5:40:
"...you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."
Here Jesus plainly says that "coming" precedes the giving of life. This flatly contradicts the Calvinists interpretation of John 6:44 and renders such an interpretation impossible.
In view of John 5:40, the drawing of John 6:44 can have no reference to regeneration.
Notice what's going on, a reading of two discourses and the implication that one is determinative of the other.
In actuality, this is no problem at all. Jesus is speaking of the two resurrections. The one who comes will be "raised on the last day." That section of John 5 will go on to explain the first and second resurrections. So these texts are not at all incongruent. Every reference to "life" is not a reference to "regeneration." or to drawing.
I had written:
And again the presence and reality of a choice is present in the room like a 600 lb gorilla that Bridges just cannot see.
Gene continues to evade and avoid the issue which I am focusing upon. I think the reason is simple, his determinism does not allow for the reality of choices. And yet we all experience innumerable choices and the bible presents lots of situations where the reality of choice is present. Since the data of both universal human experience and scripture is so clear and completely contradicts Gene’s determinism. He chooses to avoid and evade the issue. The issue is whether or not choices as ordinarily understood are ever experienced by human persons or not. Instead of dealing with the issue forthrightly and honestly Gene keeps trying to get the focus on something else. He writes:
“Once again, Robert is neglecting the issue. The issue is not the presence of the choice but the faithfullness of God to deliver. I phrased words carefully. If we want to be delievered by the way of escape, then we will do so. If we fail to take that escape, then it is because we do not want to do so. God's faithfulness is upheld, but hte way of escape serves to expose our sinfulness or maturity.”
J.C. brought up 1 Cor. 10:13 as an example of where free will must be present in order for the passage to make sense. I took some time to explain this and my analysis was completely ignored by Gene. The reason that J.C. brought the passage up and I took time to discuss it is because it clearly presents a situation where a choice as normally understood is present (i.e. the person is able to actualize either option in the situation, neither selection is necessitated, the person ends up choosing one option but he also could have chosen the other option if he had selected the other option). Instead of showing how, if his determinism were true, that the choice was not present, that the person could not actualize either possibility/option/opportunity, Gene simply ignores what I said and tries to shift the focus of the discussion.
“No, for a determined choice has a suffient cause behind it. Robert is ignoring the argument I'm making. God's decree may predetermine the outcome, but the choice when presented is real and determined, since the means to the end are the choices of the individuals. These choices are determined by a set of sufficient reasons, causes, etc.”
Now Gene is talking gibberish. This is because he is using the word choice, but not according to its ordinary meaning. This is highly deceptive and again evasive. I have made myself clear what I mean by the word choice, and I am using it according to its ordinary meaning. If a choice as normally understood exists then the person can do either option in the situation. If an action by a person is predetermined by God then the person can only do the one action which God had predetermined for him to do (and if he can only do one action, then he does not have a choice as normally understood). Now if Gene were to demonstrate or prove that choices as normally understood do not occur, that would be one thing. But he uses the word choice, when in fact his determinism does not allow for choices as normally understood to exist. Analogy, Christians use certain terms with certain meanings which are well established and involve common usage among Christians. A non-christian cult person comes along and uses the same terms but with a very different meaning. So when dealing with such persons you have to be careful and intentional about defining terms and pointing out when the other side is using the term with a different meaning. In a similar way (note I am not saying Gene is a cultist) Gene is using the word choice, but he cannot be using it in the way it is commonly understood (if his determinism is true and exhaustive then we cannot actualize both options that appear to be a choice before us, we can only do the one predetermined option and so we do not have a choice as ordinarily understood).
Now I keep bringing up this simple point and I get evasion after evasion from Gene.
“Robert has a short memory of the historical record. We've refuted his argument multiple times while he's gone silent.”
My point has never been refuted here, not even close. IF IT WERE THEN GENE OR ANYONE ELSE HERE WOULD HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT CHOICES AS ORDINARILY UNDERSTOOD NEVER OCCUR. This has never been shown here, nor will they ever be able to do so. They simply present their compatibilism/calvinism and claim that I am wrong (completely evading and ignoring my argument).
In my last post I asked again for Gene to be forthright and directly deal with the issue of the reality or non-reality of choices as ordinarily understood when I wrote (note especially the question at the end):
How do we ordinarily define the word choice? Does this ordinary definition include the notion of choosing from among various alternative possibilities each of which could be actualized if chosen (call it X)? OK, with that simple and common sense notion of the nature of choice in mind, exegete some bible verses and see if (X) is present in the bible situations? If it is never present, then determinism is true (note I said never because exhaustive determinism would universally preclude choices as ordinarily understood), if it is sometimes present, then libertarian free will is true (note to maintain the reality of choice I do not have to show that in every instance choice is present, I need only show that sometimes choices are present, and yet if choices are sometimes present then exhaustive determinism is false).
Gene do you believe that we ever experience choices as ordinarily understood or not?
I asked a direct question, and if Gene was answering honestly he could either answer Yes or NO and then give his explanation for his answer. Note his actual response again completely evades giving an answer:
“a. Robert is simply engaging in more bare, question begging assertions.
b. He said this argument would be from Scripture and common sense. Where is the exegetical portion?”
Let me put it another way, and see if this brings out the issue more clearly. Imagine that I claim that there are purple blips and that we encounter these purple blips both in our daily experience and we also find these purple blips in the bible. Note my claim is that these purple blips have actual existence. I am also claiming that all of us encounter these purple blips daily. I am also claiming that we see evidence of these purple blips in the bible as well. Three claims: they exist, they are present in our daily experience and they are present in the bible. So how would we demonstrate the actual existence of these purple blips (or the contrary: that these purple blips do not exist, are not found in our daily experience nor are they found in the bible)? We would examine the available evidence. Staying with this analogy I have argued for the existence and presence of these purple blips and argued they are found in abundant numbers both in our experience and in the bible. I have now asked Gene: Gene do you believe that we experience purple blips as ordinarily understood or not?
Gene wants to claim this is begging the question, mere question begging assertions. He is merely being evasive. I have defined the purple blips as ordinarily understood (simply substitute HAVING CHOICES for purple blips and define having choices as it is commonly described or referred to; having alternative possibilities from which to select, I can pick this or pick that, it is my decision whether I do or do not do (X), I am deciding between doing this or that, etc. etc.). Gene knows what I mean by having choices and he knows what people ordinarily mean by having a choice. So with that concept in mind, I keep asking does he or does he not believe that choices exist? This is not begging the question, if he believes that this experience does not occur, that we do not have choices as commonly understood, then simply answer NO I do not believe these purple blips/choices exist, or that we experience them daily or that they are present in the bible. Now I know what his answer would be if he were forthright and honest, because as a determinist he believes that everything is predetermined (and if he understands that exhaustive determinism rules out alternative possibilities, being able to do otherwise, or to use the quaint and popular term favored by calvinists, having contracausal freedom) then he will answer No that choices as ordinarily understood do not exist.
But instead of being open and honest and forthright on this issue, he is evasive and he repeatedly seeks to redirect the focus on other issues. And he also continues to use the word choice and speaks of choices though his exhaustive determinism precludes the reality of choices.
I believe the evidence for the reality of having choices, and choices being present in both our daily experience and in the bible is overwhelming and obvious (or purple blips if you prefer, I really do not care what you call this phenomena). Gene says my position has been refuted. That is completely off base. Where has Gene or any other determinist for that matter, ever shown that we never have any choices, that we do not have choices in our daily experience and that the bible never presents situations where people have choices? How can Gene claim that he has refuted my position if he isn’t even willing to answer the simple question directly posed to him: Gene do you believe that we ever experience choices as ordinarily understood or not?
Now if Gene had answered No, I do not believe that choices exist, I do not believe that we have choices in our daily experience, I do not believe that the choices are present in the bible. And then given evidence for his belief, evidence which conclusively showed that choices as ordinarily understood are not real, that choices never occur, and that choices are neither present in our experience nor in the bible, then my position would be refuted. Has Gene done any of this? No, he hasn’t even been able to honestly answer the question directly posed to him about the reality or non-reality of choices as ordinarily understood.
Robert
"I stumbled across this website via the combox of another blog. In my estimation, Arminianism is indefensible. But that doesn't stop its proponents from trying."
Calvinism is indefensible and that's not a mere opinion. Claiming that God made you sin is Satanic antichristianism, but we call it Calvinism as a nickname.
Welcome to our wow Gold and store. We are specilized, professional and reliable website for selling and service. By the wow power leveling same token,we offer the best WoW service for our long-term and loyal customers You will find the benefits and powerleveling value we created different from other sites. As to most people, they are unwilling to spend most of the time grinding money for mounts or repair when they can purchase what they are badly need. The only way is to look for the best place to wow powerleveling buy cheap WOW gold. Yes! You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our wow gold delivery instant. Actually, we have been getting tons of postive feedbacks from our loyal customers who really appreciate our service.
You will get a beautiful cloth which in the game if we want to need the beautiful cloth, we can use our own Scions Of Fate gold to buy. The one I owned on my character is one of my friends sent to me the necessary SOF gold. Sometimes we can share the trophy as the necessary Scions Of Fate money together, and we do quest together. I do not have enough confidence and cheap SOF gold about my weak memory. First I have to buy sof gold to improve my pet which I have a lovely leopard in this game.
When I begin to play this Seal Online game, I first go to buy seal online cegel to buy some my favorite and beautiful clothes to dress up my character. I have spent cheap seal cegel to buy my favorite cloth. I mean we have anime and some necessary seal online cegel based games that do not look really kid dish. Though I will admit with my own seal cegel I went crazy on leveling with DECO. Some of the skills that we can use our sealonline cegel to improve to look amazing, and are fun to just watch honestly.
Now do you worried about that in the game do not had enough rohan crone to play the game, now you can not worried, my friend told me a website, in here you can buy a lot rohan gold and only spend a little money, do not hesitate, it was really, in here we had much rohan online crone, we can sure that you will get the rohan online gold, quick to come here to buy rohan money.
Now do you worried about that in the game do not had enough Rose zuly to play the game, now you can not worried, my friend told me a website, in here you can buy a lot rose zulie and only spend a little money, do not hesitate, it was really, in here we had much rose online zuly, we can sure that you will get the rose online zulie, quick to come here to buy Arua ROSE zuly.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link