Sic:
The conflict between determinism and 1 Corinthians 10:13 is especially clear in cases where a determinist denies the commonly understood concept of free will. [ii] That is to say, since 1 Corinthians 10:13 teaches the common man’s idea of freewill, denying the normal concept of free will is unbiblical. However, not all determinists grant that the normal concept of free will is libertarian, so we turn to determinist understandings of 1 Corinthians 10:13.
Et non:
Owen Flanagan discussed experiments about conceptions of free will done on undergraduate students. The students were given a definition of free will and then asked questions about whether the person made the decision and was responsible for her actions. The majority of subjects turned out to be both determinists and compatibilists, which undermines the popular idea that the commonsense concept of free will is contra-causal.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteFor reference, I will provide footnote II:
The question therefore is, Does the Bible teach the freedom of the will? By freedom of the will is meant what most ordinary people mean: the absence of any controlling power, even God and his grace, and therefore the equal ability in any situation to choose either of two incompatible courses of action. There are some semi-Calvinists who, presumably through fear, assert the freedom of the will, and then more or less disguise the fact that they define freedom of the will in a way most people would never guess. .... Freedom of the will, almost universally, means that God does not determine a man's choice. It means that the will is uncaused, not predetermined. The present book uses free will in its ordinary, commonly accepted sense. The question is Does the Bible teach freedom of the will? It is so obvious that the Bible contradicts the notion of free will that its acceptance by professing Christians can be explained only by the continuing ravages of sin in the minds of men. (Gordon H. Clark. Predestination. The Trinity Foundation. 1987 P.81)
The problem is that Clark (a Calvinist philosopher) disagrees with Owen Flanagan and he still rejects the "common man's concept of free will".
If you want to say that's Clark's and those who agree with him's problem, that's fair. That's my point as well.
God be with you,
Dan
No, that's not your point. That's the opposite of your point. You made an unsourced, hasty generalization about the common man's concept of freedom. I presented counterevidence. Try again.
DeleteThe question at issue is not whether Calvinists reject the libertarian concept of freewill as true, but whether the libertarian concept is the common man's concept of freewill. Don't change the subject.
Steve,
Delete? Read the Clark quote again.
I discuss if determinism is compatible with the common man concept of free will in the next section.
God be with you,
Dan
Referring to Clark is anachronistic. He wasn't privy to the kinds of experimental/sociological evidence cited by Flanagan.
ReplyDeleteGiving the dated, personal opinion of Clark fails to establish your claim that the libertarian concept of freewill is, indeed, the common man's concept.
I'm not sure how in touch Gordon Clark was with the common man, even in his day.
ReplyDeleteSo Clark is ancient history and he was a weirdo anyways. OK, see my first response.
ReplyDeleteBut I did read through one survey (the quote you provided didn't give a source, but this is one Paul M brought up a while back).
http://www.traditionalbaptistchronicles.com/2012/11/survey-showing-most-people-are.html
If you have others, you’re welcome to cite them.
God be with you,
Dan