It has been claimed by some laymen Arminian epologists (I have not seen this claim by any reputable Arminian philosopher or theologian) that if X is determined by God, then X cannot be a choice. In other words, if it were determined that I eat Cheerios at time t, then although I took the box of Cheerios at t rather than the Lucky Charms, even deliberating about which one to take, reaching a decision for reasons, responsive to reasons to the contrary, and figuring that instantiating a Cheerios-filled world was better than a Lucky-Charms-filled world, I nevertheless didn't choose the Cheerios at t.
Now, that the above wasn't a choice is highly counterintuitive to many people, so it seems. But besides its highly counterintuitive flavor, it has another defect; that of contradicting God's word.
To explain. I take it that it will be granted that some people choose when they will die (e.g., suicides, euthanized &c.). For example, it is fairly obvious that there has been at least one person S, that decided to die at time t. S chose to die at t. For example, perhaps S was terminally ill and brought Jack Kevorkian in to administer a lethal dose of potassium chloride at t, which would kill S at t1. Therefore, S chose to die at t1. Call the above the Suicide Pact, SP. SP simply states that:
[SP] Some people choose to die at t
For those who hold to biblical inspiration, [SP] demonstrates that one can choose to do what is determined he will do. For example, take Job 14:5:
Since man's days are determined,
The number of his months is with You;
You have appointed his limits, so that he cannot pass.
It seems fairly obvious that some people have chosen to die in three months, after they say their goodbyes and do that "last thing". So, it seems fairly obvious that some people have chosen to number their months to X. But, X was also determined. Stated another way: God determined S to die at t, and S choose to die at t. Or, stated formally:
Let
H = a Human being.
D = the months of the human's days are Determined at t
S = a sane being that chooses to commit Suicide at t
(x) (Hx ⊃ Dx)
(∃x) (Sx ∙ Hx) / ∴ (∃x) (Sx ∙ Dx)
One can deny either Job 14:5, or that some humans choose to die at t (where t = a month). Neither seems to be an attractive option for the orthodox Christian. Therefore, it looks as if one can choose to do what is determined he will do. It should also be easy to see that with some minor changes we can add that some people chose to die according to a free choice, and that some people who die according to a free choice are morally responsible for their actions; that, therefore, freedom and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism if one grants inerrancy. All orthodox Christians grant inerrancy. Therefore, all orthodox Christrians ought to be compatibilists.
I don't like Lucky Charms either.
ReplyDeleteRecently it has been suggested that the story of 2 Kings 13:17-19 proves LFW.
ReplyDeleteThe story goes that this shows that if the king had struck the arrows 5-6 times then a different outcome would come about. So there was an alternate possibility that could have happened if only a different choice were made. Apparently this shows that there really are alternate possibilities that are at our disposal.
Now I always thought that LFW was an action theory that tries to address HOW we make choices, but it seems that some people conflate choice with LFW. So they point to examples of people having choices and say "There, LFW is fact!". Yet the issue seems to be HOW choices are made.
So in the example of 2 Kings I can say that yes a different outcome could have happened IF the king did other than he did, but if you replayed the scene and all things are equal then you would get the same result. What LFW states though is that if you replayed the scene and all things are equal then you would get a different result. Right?
I'm not big on philosophy and would like to get your thoughts on this. After all, I could just be missing the obvious.
Magnus,
ReplyDeleteNo determinist would disagree that a different outcome would come about if a different choice were made. Of course a different choice would mean a different past and so an alternative possibility given all the possible decrees.
"What LFW states though is that if you replayed the scene and all things are equal then you would get a different result. Right?
Not that you would, that you could; or that you would given mutiple rewinds.
That Job citation is interesting, thanks for that. One thing that I wrestled with when learning about Calvinism was whether God predestines only in regards to salvation, or whether everything that happens is predestined...and the latter seems to be the case. However, I was wondering if you could think of any other verses that point to the idea that all things are predetermined by God?
ReplyDeleteMathetes,
ReplyDeleteTry Ecclesiastes 7:14, Isaiah 45:7, Isaiah 46:9-10, Lamentations 3:37-39, and Amos 3:6.
I have a list of others here:
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/12/eternal-decree-of-god.html
Mathetes,
ReplyDeleteS&S's verses are good. There's also Eph. 1
Anyway, all you need is one free act being determined and you undermine libertarianism.
WRT predetermining being only in regards to salvation, I have to ask how that would work if everything else was indeterminate? How would that work in a paragdigmatic case of salvation. A paragdigmatic case is one where one is regenerated by the Spirit while hearing the preaching of the word. The paragdigmatic person would need to get to that church or location, know the language of the preacher, actually listen to the preacher, and a host of other things that need to happen. So, once this is spelled out there's no guarantee that the risk isn't too much that God would need to determine those other things too.
We can also add to the above argument. The person was predetermined to get saved at location L, but presumably people choose where they live, so persons chose to live at L yet it was determined that they would live at L (think Acts 17 here).
There's also question about the implications of God's exhaustive foreknowledge. Libertarians are moving more and more to open theism since exhaustive foreknowledge seems to undermine libertarianism. So, there's more reasons to suppose exhaustive determination other than some verses.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe result of a choice (i.e. death) may be determined even if the choice itself is not.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI am at a loss as to how you think that pith rebuts anything I wrote.
God determines I die at t, I chose to die at t.
Could God determine I die at t and I choose to instantiate an alternative possibility?
Hello there!
ReplyDeleteChallenging blog for me to read on my search - I do have a few quips with this in particular here, however.
1) You state all orthodox must hold to CFW. Does this mean you hold all Arminians as condemned? If so, then if you are wrong that Arminians are condemned, then given Christianity, you're committing the Unpardonable Sin. This seems to me to be dangerous, dangerous thinking.
2) Your passage from Job, in the full context of Job 14, speaks of the condition of man in general - see verse 1 for what I mean. The passage you cite simply states that God has determined man isn't going to hang around for a random number of years, from a day to thousands of years. God determined man's life to be short and full of strife. That's what's being said here IMO.
Looking forward to your response,
D.
Compare with Genesis 6:1-4. Does each and every man live to 120, or is that a limit for man in general, as implied here?
Darren,
ReplyDelete1) No. I am saying that if they affirm infallibility, and if one can choose or freely do what is determined (as my argument suggests), then thy *should* be compatibilists. Same as if I said credobaptists *should* be paedobaptists. I don't think credobaptists are "condemned", though. Neither do I think so about Arminians in general.
2) It appears to be more specific than what you suggest, viz., "you have decreed the number of his months."
I don't think Gen. 6 is saying that each and every man will live to be 120, but I don't think Gen. 6 supports you in Job 14 since Job 14 makes no claims about length but simply says that God "determines the number of his months." Job 14 could be said of a baby that dies in infancy or a woman who dies at 100. In fact, Job just had certain family members die and he faced that prospect. Job is saying that his months have been numbered, right down to the minute. Job is pointing out God's right to take a man when he pleases. Elphaz wants Job to repent and get back in God's good graces, so he says: "The gray-haired and the aged are on our side, men even older than your father." To that Job would say, God numbered their months to X, but my children's to Y. Job knows this, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away…”
Further collaboration of this notion might be found in the Psalms:
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
(139:16)
Job likens our days to that of a hired servant, hard work for a specific time.
Lastly, I don't think your interpretation makes sense. To claim that Job is merely saying that man doesn't live forever seems an odd thing to say in his circumstances. It would be rather like saying 1+1=2. Would you state the obvious if you were going through the trials of Job?
Darrin could perhaps be right about Job 14:4. I believe that Jacob Hartley (NICOT) takes that interpretation. Ask Steve, he would know.
ReplyDeleteButy as Paul pointed out, there are other passages in Scripture that say that God has determined the day of death of every man.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe result of a choice (i.e. death) may be determined even if the choice itself is not.
God be with you,
Dan
This seems terribly simplistic insofar as Paul has noted it doesn't answer the issue he posed, but also it doesn't answer the question of how God can know the outcomes of indeterminate objects of knowledge. If the choice itself is an indeterminate object of knowledge how can God know, with absolute certainty, the outcome?
S&S,
ReplyDeleteDarren may be right, but as you pointed out, there's other verses. I don't think he is, though.
The specificity seems to undermine that interpretation. If "the number of his months is fixed" means "he doesn't live for forever," then what does "his days are determined" mean? Presumably the same thing. So we have this:
Man doesn't live forever.
Man doesn't live forever.
You have said he will die eventually, so that he cannot pass.
Secondly, Howell Jones agrees with my interpretation (127).
Hartley does say that limits means "prescribed amount."
Balentine says that "the days and months of every human life are fixed (determined) by God with prescribed limits" (217).
Paul,
ReplyDeleteGod determines I die at t, I chose to die at t.
Right. Death is what is determined and chosen, but the choice to die is not determined.
Could God determine I die at t and I choose to instantiate an alternative possibility?
No, if death is determined there isn't an alternative possibility to death. Of course we could choose something other than death at T and still die at T. So while there could be alternative possibilities regarding the choice itself, there may not be alternative possibilities regarding the outcome of the choice.
Dear Gene,
I don't know how God knows the future.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"Right. Death is what is determined and chosen, but the choice to die is not determined."
Me:
That's not what the text says. It says that the exact number of days are determined. That means that God determined the exact time that man would die which also means that He ordained the means as well (unless you're a fatalist).
Also, Ecclesiastes 7:14 says the exact same thing: that God had determined the evil things as well as the good that happens. To say that evil things happen simply because God cannot stop them and that they have no purpose is to defeat the entire purpose of the book of Ecclesiastes.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteBut you said that if it was determined that I eat Cheerios at t, then I didn't have a choice because BY DEFINITION choice MUST MEAN that one can do otherwise. So, you're shifting goal posts now. You said for a choice to be real, one has to be able to choose the opposite. But now you say that one could choose to die at t, and not choose the opposite - since that would mean God was wrong. So, check and mate.
Furthermore, Dan, I have no clue how God could determine that S die at t without determining many other things, including S's choices. Presumably, if God determined S die at t, where t = 101 years, then it would seem S would *have to* make the right choices, i.e., eat healthy, not do drugs, etc. Seems to me that God couldn't determine that S die at t if libertarianism were true.
I have been banned from Dan's blog again so I will ask here.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that LFW seems to always say well if you have a choice then it proves you can do otherwise and this proves LFW.
Now I always thought that choice in and of itself means little, what really is the meat of the subject is the why and how.
Why make the choices we make and how do we make the choices. This seems to be the crux of the matter, to me at least.
That is why I always refer back to the tree, if the tree is good you will get good fruit and if bad then bad fruit. Or to put it another way, if the tree is good than the choices made will be good.
It seems that one of the big problems for LFW'ers is that they cannot account for man’s sinful nature. After all if man does have this LFW then he should be able to do good and bad without God’s grace or assistance, yet for most there is this disconnect and they do not see this problem. Maybe I'm just missing it though.
Well, I guess the simplistic answer is Death itself. When you have come to your end, and you are mistaken about why you end, afterwards, it will all be clear, perfectly clear for now I know in part.
ReplyDeleteI also point to what Moses meant as these comments underscore:
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
What it seems to me Adam lost was the same "knowing" God has. But now, like the rest of us, "....in pain you shall eat of it [the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, doomed to a life of learning], all the days of your life;..."
But to digress in here, I am happy to post some words by J.V. Fesko and his little booklet, "What is Justification by Faith Alone?
pg.18 "....Old Testament Israel was rebellious cantankerous, faithless, and above all else, disobedient. Jesus, unlike Adam, Noah, and Israel, was God's obedient faithful, and submissive Son."
wow, what life in those words!!
and
pg. 21, "....The life and death of Christ are foundational to the doctrine of Justification, but what many do not realize is that the resurrection is just as important and necessary. The resurrection is necessary for several reasons. First, if death was able to hold Jesus in bonds, it would have meant that Jesus was guilty of sin."
"....if Jesus had remained in the grave, his crucifixion would have been legitimate. Second, if Christ had not risen from the dead, it would have meant that the power of sin and death had not been broken and conquered. Third, if Jesus had not been raised from the dead, it would have meant that God had not accepted the sacrifice on behalf of the people of God."
wow again!