tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4222513800162547139..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Is It Even Possible?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85789093572797147632010-04-18T17:47:52.224-04:002010-04-18T17:47:52.224-04:00Wow! Peter you are losing this debate with Brian....Wow! Peter you are losing this debate with Brian. He is simply using your logic against you this time.The Seeking Disciplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850752852586928341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90007251313131632732010-04-18T16:17:52.467-04:002010-04-18T16:17:52.467-04:00Bossmanham,
Well I don't think compatibilism ...Bossmanham,<br /><br /><i>Well I don't think compatibilism is even a coherent idea</i>. <br /><br />That is how I feel about incompatilism.<br /><br /><i>I don't think it's possible to be determined yet free</i>.<br /><br />I do<br /><br /><br /><i>The two concepts are mutually exclusive. That is why I'm an incompatibilist. I think if determinism is true then it is either God who has necessitated every single action or God doesn't exist and naturalistic determinism is true. If it is God who has determined all events then, contrary to scripture, He has necessitated sin.</i><br /><br />I think that God has made everything certain to happen and nothing can change that or else the word certain loses meaning.<br /><br /><i>Weather doesn't have a will</i>.<br /><br />I never meant to imply that it does, only that God micro manages it.<br /><br /><i>I'm not sure this is the case, but even if God determined your income it doesn't follow that He determines all of your choices. He could alter other circumstances to keep you poor or rich</i>.<br /><br />I’m not sure how it cannot be the case. <br /><br /><i>I think you answered your own question. God can provide something that we choose to use or not</i>.<br /><br />Forgive the vagueness, what I was saying is that if I want to eat today that it is God that provides the food. So if God does not provide physical food to consume today then no matter if I wanted to eat I would have no food.<br /><br /><i>The will isn't able to choose if a person gets sick or not. That isn't someting that is within our power to control, beyond taking care of our bodies</i>.<br /><br />That is pretty much what I said, but it goes to show that this is just another feature that God micro manages.<br /><br /><i>No one says they are against God's "micro management" as you put it. I believe God has complete providential control over history and my life. I too praise Him for that</i>.<br />Great! We agree and it is right to give our thanks and praise to God.<br /><br /><i>Nope. We do make our own choices, but it is God who provides. If we get ourselves into trouble by our own sins, we can't say that it is because God causally necessitated those sins. But God is still in control of what He allows</i>.<br /><br />I agree that we make our own choices. One more time, God does not causally necessitate those sins, but God does make those sins 100% certain.<br /><br /><i>This is exactly what I believe</i>.<br /><br />Glad to hear we agree on even more. And again the point that I take from this article is that we internally determine to make our choices, but that our internals have been created and therefore cannot be indeterministic. <br /><br />Seeing as I do not want to detract from the conversation between Peter and Brian I will bow out for now, my email is available on my profile. I will leave you the last word.<br /><br />God bless.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6915385009691959252010-04-18T15:58:54.668-04:002010-04-18T15:58:54.668-04:00so would it be a logical fallacy to talk about a n...<i>so would it be a logical fallacy to talk about a non-determined choice that came about because it was determined.</i><br /><br />We mean undetermined by another being other than the being who makes the decision. It is certainly a person's will that determines what they will do, by their choice.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5884545284325061562010-04-18T12:49:06.414-04:002010-04-18T12:49:06.414-04:00It's a logical violation because of the defini...It's a logical violation because of the definition of the word "determined" for one thing. Just as it's a logical fallacy to talk about a married bachelor, so would it be a logical fallacy to talk about a non-determined choice that came about because it was determined.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63891505826968350162010-04-18T08:12:14.940-04:002010-04-18T08:12:14.940-04:00“…it does no good to argue ‘God just can overcome ...<i>“…it does no good to argue ‘God just can overcome this limitation.’ This limitation is a <b>logical limitation</b>, and just as God cannot make a round square, so God cannot give us the ability to make a non-determined choice. Either the choice is determined or it is not a choice because it is random and arbitrary.”</i><br /><br />I don't see a "logical limitation" at all. Instead, I see a design issue (the thing in which you are arguing against). Nevertheless, what law of logic is being violated. Without such a law, it seems rather easy to presume that an omniscient Being knows how to create a being with the capacity to render a non-determined choice, though within a given set of parameters, such parameters as evidenced by 1 Cor 10:13.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90735035589492576502010-04-18T03:44:29.939-04:002010-04-18T03:44:29.939-04:00Since this dropped off the main page, I haven'...Since this dropped off the main page, I haven't been able to follow it as much as I should. I will write a new post in the next couple of days addressing some of the issues here, since it is apparently of far more interest than I thought it would be.<br /><br />I will note that thus far the only alternative to my position has been the statement that man's will is sui generis. In other words, when I say that it is logically impossible for the will to be created in a non-determined and non-random manner, and the only response is the special pleading "the will is unique and isn't like anything else that's created" then that pretty much already proves my point.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19673151616574514112010-04-17T23:24:04.425-04:002010-04-17T23:24:04.425-04:00Mitch,
If natural, unregenerate man can only do e...Mitch,<br /><br /><i>If natural, unregenerate man can only do evil in the sight of God how is that better than the compatibilist that gives limited free will to man?</i><br /><br />Well I don't think compatibilism is even a coherent idea. I don't think it's possible to be determined yet free. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. That is why I'm an incompatibilist. I think if determinism is true then it is either God who has necessitated every single action or God doesn't exist and naturalistic determinism is true. If it is God who has determined all events then, contrary to scripture, He has necessitated sin.<br /><br /><i>Weather today and all days</i><br /><br />Weather doesn't have a will.<br /><br /><i>Whether I’m rich or poor (no matter if I use LFW to try and prosper, God is the one who decides)</i><br /><br />I'm not sure this is the case, but even if God determined your income it doesn't follow that He determines all of your choices. He could alter other circumstances to keep you poor or rich.<br /><br /><i>Whether I eat today (no matter if I choose to eat, God is the one who provides me food each day)</i><br /><br />I think you answered your own question. God can provide something that we choose to use or not.<br /><br /><i>Whether I’m healthy or sick (no matter if I use LFW and make all the right choices when it comes to health, God is the one who decides)</i><br /><br />The will isn't able to choose if a person gets sick or not. That isn't someting that is within our power to control, beyond taking care of our bodies.<br /><br /><i>I could go on, but to me God does micro manage my life and I praise Him for that</i><br /><br />No one says they are against God's "micro management" as you put it. I believe God has complete providential control over history and my life. I too praise Him for that.<br /><br /><i>It seems that what you are implying, forgive and correct me if I’m wrong, is that God does not micro manage my life and that in many ways I’m on my own, kind of like survival of the fittest</i><br /><br />Nope. We do make our own choices, but it is God who provides. If we get ourselves into trouble by our own sins, we can't say that it is because God causally necessitated those sins. But God is still in control of what He allows.<br /><br /><i>I would rather hold to the belief that is more Biblical to me, which is that I have some limited freedom and that God is in complete control.</i><br /><br />This is exactly what I believe.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47337077817706799612010-04-17T07:47:15.742-04:002010-04-17T07:47:15.742-04:00Skarlet & Bossmanham,
I’m glad I have LFW and...Skarlet & Bossmanham,<br /><br />I’m glad I have LFW and would like to ask a simple question.<br /><br />If natural, unregenerate man can only do evil in the sight of God how is that better than the compatibilist that gives limited free will to man?<br /><br />I get that you do not think that God micro manages, but how does that square with all that God does manage. For example<br /><br />Weather today and all days<br />Whether I’m rich or poor (no matter if I use LFW to try and prosper, God is the one who decides)<br />Whether I eat today (no matter if I choose to eat, God is the one who provides me food each day)<br />Whether I’m healthy or sick (no matter if I use LFW and make all the right choices when it comes to health, God is the one who decides)<br /><br />I could go on, but to me God does micro manage my life and I praise Him for that. Because I know that no matter what difficulties I face that God is in control and will provide all I need. <br /><br />It seems that what you are implying, forgive and correct me if I’m wrong, is that God does not micro manage my life and that in many ways I’m on my own, kind of like survival of the fittest. I would rather hold to the belief that is more Biblical to me, which is that I have some limited freedom and that God is in complete control.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36556664186525553922010-04-17T03:20:17.976-04:002010-04-17T03:20:17.976-04:00(Mitch)
You said "Also, please forgive me if...(Mitch)<br /><br />You said "Also, please forgive me if I came across as thinking that LFW means that you can choose whatever you want i.e. flying. That is not what I meant to convey. Only that if I have LFW it should be well within my power to be righteous and bring forth good fruit."<br /><br />But you see, what we are trying to say is that those two examples deal with the same principle: the principle of power. You do not have the power to fly (therefore you can't choose to fly) and you do not have the power to please God without faith (therefore you can't choose to please God without faith. LFW does not teach that man has the POWER to do righteousness by his own strength, or to save himself, or to fly! LFW merely teaches that man can make his own choices, and internally determine his own actions. <br /><br />In reference to LFW, a man tied up in a dungeon is as free as a King - both internally determine their own chosen actions. It is not an issue of power. You misunderstand that when you say that if you have LFW, which you do since you internally causally determine your own choices, then you would have the "power" to bring forth good fruit. But will is not power. Just as you can will to fly, but not have the power to fly, you can also will to bring forth good fruit, but not have the power in yourself to bring forth good fruit. Christ is the vine - only through His power are we able to bring forth fruit. Bringing forth good fruit without Christ is even more impossible than flying.Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55967063720243165762010-04-17T03:19:32.351-04:002010-04-17T03:19:32.351-04:00Mitch,
You say that "I believe that my choi...Mitch, <br /><br />You say that "I believe that my choices are internally determined and that I alone am responsible for them."<br /><br />First of all, if you believe that, then you already believe in LFW. LFW is the idea that all of our choices are internally determined. <br /><br />You also say "if I in my natural state can only choose evil then it matters little whether I have no choice, 3 choices or an infinite amount of choices" and "If one holds to total depravity then LFW is useless."<br /><br />Now, naturally I do not believe that LFW is useless, but I will debate that separately. What I take exception to is the idea that is something is not "useful" it cannot be "true." It is of firstmost importance to find and believe truth, rather than to dismiss theories as untrue simply because they do not appear at first glance to be on any use.<br /><br />To answer the question "what use is it?" I actually wrote a blog about that, here: http://christiancompletely.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-does-it-matter-if-people-have-free.html<br /><br />"Yet I’ve been internally determined to be depraved before I was born and had no say on the matter."<br /><br />You were externally determined to be depraved. That is, you didn't choose to be born with a sin nature. You inherited that from Adam. But the choices you make with that nature are your own internally-determined choices. In your life now, as a christian, you still internally determine your own choices: what to eat, what to wear, whether to sin, which righteousnesses to pursue, what ministry to go into, etc. Anything good you do is by the grace of God, but your choices are your choices. <br /><br />"I agree with you and most Arminians that say that we make choices and that they are internally determined, but what I take from Mr. Pikes post is that my internals have been fixed/created depraved."<br /><br />Well, first of all, LFW is not mainly about total depravity or not. LFW mainly disagrees with the Reformed view of God's Sovereignty. We believe that God is Sovereign over free creatures who internally determine their own choices, and that God rules. The Reformed view is that God, and not us, causally determines our actions - foreordains them, not allowing them, but causing them. That is the view that the only way God can be sovereign is if He micro-manages everything. According to that view, we do not (interally) causally determine our own choices, but God (external to us) causally determines our choices.<br /><br />The main point of Pike's post is the idea that it would be impossible for people to determine their own choices - that a person's choice must be either externally determined, or else random. This, naturally, is an either/or fallacy. He gives the example of computers being programmed - that their choices are either externally determined, or else random. This would certainly prove his point IF people were no more than machines. However, he sadly fails to take into account the spirit and soul of man, which were made in the image of God, who (internally) causally determines his own moral choices. God's choices are neither externally determined, nor random. We, unlike computers, have a soul and a spirit and are also capable of internally determining our own moral choices. As non-believers, we will determine to sin, but that is another point altogether - one that we all agree upon, in fact.Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76047800643531611852010-04-16T21:49:19.990-04:002010-04-16T21:49:19.990-04:00Bossmanham,
Then you fail to understand LFW.
Tha...Bossmanham,<br /><br /><i>Then you fail to understand LFW.</i><br /><br />That may be true.<br /><br /><i>It means our actions are causally separate from God.</i><br /><br />I agree that our actions are causally separate from God.<br /><br /><i>If determinism is true, then God is the one who has made all of your actions necessary. Just because we can't choose to do anything doesn't mean we don't choose freely.</i><br /><br />I would only alter one word from what you said and say it this way<br /><br />If determinism is true, then God is the one who has made all of your actions <b>CERTAIN</b>.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61653047429839050642010-04-16T20:04:20.170-04:002010-04-16T20:04:20.170-04:00Against P2: it seems obviously logically possible ...Against P2: it seems obviously logically possible for God to create creatures whose design does <i>not entail</i> every action (even, as I've been tacitly supposing, in conjunction with the circumstances, the past, and the laws of nature). Here's one way for God to do this: include in D a "deep chance" randomizing device which plays a crucial part in the production of S's action. Of course, S will not be a <i>free</i> creature in most such cases, but it shows that it's not <i>logically impossible</i> for God to create creatures such that their design does not entail every action. So, P2 is false.<br /><br />Against P2*: why think that it could not be up to S whether, given a certain design D, a certain action A follows? What's to (logically!) prevent God from including in S's design D a power of being able to choose from amongst more than one option? Facts about D might determine the scope of options available to S (both in general, and in a given set of circumstances) and the indeterministic propensities associated with S's choosing each possible outcome. Indeed, facts about D might even rationally explain S's choices (e.g. by citing the reasons - produced by D - on which S acted), but such rational explanation need not be deterministic in nature (some theorists have even argued that it need not be even causal in nature).<br /><br />At this point you seem to object: but if D doesn't determine A, then A's occurrence must be a mere matter of chance.<br /><br />But this has not been shown. Certainly the <i>concept</i> of determinism (or a deterministic relation) doesn't support such an inference - it's not like we <i>define</i> determinism or its contradictory in terms of chance. So "indeterminism = chance" is not analytic. And if we think that God can have LFW, then we already grant this, since God's actions could be indeterministic but not a matter of chance. The fact that creatures are designed doesn't help motivate this argument - how do facts about design entail anything about chanciness?<br /><br />Besides, the libertarian can grant that <i>something</i> determines the action - namely, the agent herself - without affirming that the agent's design determined that the agent do so. Where's the logical contradiction in any of this?<br /><br />So the libertarian has lots of resources here: they can point to indeterministic causal relations between D and A; or a deterministic relation between S and A, and an indeterministic relation between D and S; or a non-causal relation between S and A, and a teleological relation between D and A; or various other options. Being created means that S's options might be limited (where the limitations are something beyond S's control), but this doesn't show that God is unable to give creatures a fundamental power to choose from those limited alternatives.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18173678517328561795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55196301229769108152010-04-16T20:02:02.458-04:002010-04-16T20:02:02.458-04:00Looks like it might be fun to continue our convers...Looks like it might be fun to continue our conversation here after all!<br /><br />Let me try framing an argument. Let N(P) mean, "P is the case, and S is not, and never was, free (in the LFW sense) with respect to whether P is the case" (I'm heavily borrowing, though slightly amending, from van Inwagen here). So N is a "no-freedom" operator. Let D = a proposition describing S's design (S's "nature," etc.). Let A = an arbitrarily chosen action of S's. You want to argue that:<br /><br />P1) Necessarily, If S is created/designed, then N(D)<br /><br />and (perhaps) that in this way creatures differ from God, since God is self-existent. I can agree with this. Your conclusion seems to be:<br /><br />C) Necessarily (If S is created/designed, then N(A))<br /><br />That's equivalent to saying: S's being created/designed entails that S is not free with respect to A, and since A was arbitrarily chosen, S would not be free at all. So, how do we get from P1 to C, since obviously C doesn't follow directly from P1? Here are two options:<br /><br />P2) Necessarily (If D, then A)<br /><br />This says: S's design, D, entails S's action(s), A. Another option:<br /><br />P2*) N(If D, then A)<br /><br />This says: D is followed by A, and the fact that D is followed by A is not something S has any choice about.<br /><br />We'll need one more premise to make either of these arguments valid, which is a "transfer principle" to the effect that if N(X), and N(If X then Y), then N(Y) (or for P2, we'll need only the weaker principle that if N(X) and Necessarily(If X then Y), then N(Y).) Van Inwagen calls the former principle "Rule Beta." Most libertarians will accept some (very similar) version of Rule Beta.<br /><br />So, your burden seems to be to either defend P2, defend P2*, or defend some other premise that together with P1 entails C. The libertarian denies P2 and P2*.<br />(cont'd)Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18173678517328561795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51187591433916383662010-04-16T19:11:24.962-04:002010-04-16T19:11:24.962-04:00When I say "Just because we can't choose ...When I say "Just because we can't choose to do anything doesn't mean we don't choose freely." I mean Just because we can't choose to do everything we think of doesn't mean we don't choose freely.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21600202299872363932010-04-16T19:09:13.463-04:002010-04-16T19:09:13.463-04:00Mitch,
I fail to see why the flying keeps coming ...Mitch,<br /><br /><i>I fail to see why the flying keeps coming up since I know that to be false and to my knowledge have never stated that LFW would entail that people can fly.</i><br /><br />It's an example meant to clarify our position. I use the analogy to show that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean freedom doesn't exist.<br /><br /><i>My main stumbling block lies when you acknowledge that ”because there is a limitation in their freedom” how that meshes with LFW?</i><br /><br />How doesn't it? Limited freedom != no freedom.<br /><br /><i>Again if the point is that we can choose from a smorgasbord of evil options then I fail to see the value of LFW.</i><br /><br />Then you fail to understand LFW. It means our actions are causally separate from God. If determinism is true, then God is the one who has made all of your actions necessary. Just because we can't choose to do anything doesn't mean we don't choose freely.<br /><br /><i>If one holds to total depravity then LFW is useless.</i><br /><br />How so? I hold to both. We cannot choose God without His intervention. What's the problem?<br /><br /><i>Yet the Bible seems to speak against such a view.</i><br /><br />The Bible speaks against the straw man view you seem to be arguing against, maybe. It doesn't speak against what LFWers actually believe.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11727545367648095662010-04-16T18:19:22.686-04:002010-04-16T18:19:22.686-04:00Bossmanham,
I fail to see why the flying keeps co...Bossmanham,<br /><br />I fail to see why the flying keeps coming up since I know that to be false and to my knowledge have never stated that LFW would entail that people can fly. <br /><br />My main stumbling block lies when you acknowledge that <i>”because there is a limitation in their freedom”</i> how that meshes with LFW? <br /><br />Again if the point is that we can choose from a smorgasbord of evil options then I fail to see the value of LFW. If one holds to total depravity then LFW is useless. The only purpose I see for LFW is that the person can chose other than evil and that would mean that he could be righteous and bear good fruit. Yet the Bible seems to speak against such a view. <br /><br />So I agree that we make choices that are internally determined, but as Mr. Pike has stated the internals have been created by God.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67826092986089575692010-04-16T17:33:42.990-04:002010-04-16T17:33:42.990-04:00Mitch,
Yet I’ve been internally determined to be ...Mitch,<br /><br /><i>Yet I’ve been internally determined to be depraved before I was born and had no say on the matter.</i><br /><br />As Skarlet says, LFW is about your decisions being causally determined by your own will. So you being depraved doesn't make all of your decisions necesary (causally determined). LFW also teaches that we are free to choose actual possible choices. For instance, I could not choose to sprout wings and fly because there are physical limitations that prevent that choice. So, if it were true that depraved people can only choose evil, that still doesn't show that determinism is true. All it would show is that there is a spiritual limitation that prohibits depraved people from choosing certain things. Depraved people could still freely choose from a list of evil choices. Likewise, it is not actually possible for people to seek after God without His grace, not because there is a causal determinate, but because there is a limitation in their freedom. Freedom exists nonetheless, they are just able to choose from a shorter list.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44871899179593624742010-04-16T15:15:36.167-04:002010-04-16T15:15:36.167-04:00Skarlet,
I agree with what you say here
Free wil...Skarlet,<br /><br />I agree with what you say here<br /><br /><i>Free will is not about power to make something happen, but is about the idea that our choices and actions are internally determined. Free will is why I can choose to say "please pass the mustard."</i><br /><br />I believe that my choices are internally determined and that I alone am responsible for them. Yet I’ve been internally determined to be depraved before I was born and had no say on the matter. If one holds to total depravity, then I do not see how LFW helps in any way. That could be due by my own lack of reasoning on the subject, but if I in my natural state can only choose evil then it matters little whether I have no choice, 3 choices or an infinite amount of choices. <br /><br />I agree with you and most Arminians that say that we make choices and that they are internally determined, but what I take from Mr. Pikes post is that my internals have been fixed/created depraved. <br /><br />Hopefully that makes better sense of my position. Also, please forgive me if I came across as thinking that LFW means that you can choose whatever you want i.e. flying. That is not what I meant to convey. Only that if I have LFW it should be well within my power to be righteous and bring forth good fruit. Otherwise all you have is LFW to pick only sin and I believe most non-Calvinist hold to LFW because it gives one the power to actualize the other choice such as to sin or not sin and without the ability to do that we cannot be held responsible.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44148503006851051872010-04-16T14:25:53.626-04:002010-04-16T14:25:53.626-04:00Mitch,
You say "If we have LFW then why do ...Mitch, <br /><br />You say "If we have LFW then why do all persons pick evil in there natural state when it comes to pleasing God? Why does no one seek after God? Why does the Bible say that we are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ?"<br /><br />First of all, the question of free agency does not just apply to non-christians - it applies to all people from before the fall, to after the fall, to new life in Christ. Why do we all pick sin? <br /><br />I'll tell you why. It's not because we can't do right - it's because we don't want to. I mean, if you are honest with yourself, you know that you don't sin because you have no other choice, but because you don't want to take those other choices, and choose not to. <br /><br />Naturally we are slaves to something or the other. Free will does not imply that we are not slaves (for indeed we are) or that outside forces do not pressure us to do things, or that our own desires do no tempt us, but rather implies that our actions are internally determined. We determine our own actions, and are therefore responsible for them. <br /><br />"I’m really asking to understand it better. They way I understand free will is that I do whatever I want to do. Yet in my natural state I could not bring forth good fruit even if I wanted too, but if we had LFW then that could not be a correct statement, right?"<br /><br />That is a common misunderstanding of free will: that it teaches that free will means you can do whatever you want to do. You can't. Only God has the power to do whatever He wants. I cannot fly, even if I want to. I can choose to try - I can choose to jump off the roof - but I cannot choose to actually fly because I don't have the power to do that. <br /><br />In that same way, if a non-christians wants to please God without having faith, that's like wanting to be bulletproof - they can try all they want, but it simply isn't going to happen. Not because they can't make choices, but because they do not have the power to please God without faith and do not have the physical capacity to be bulletproof.<br /><br />"If I had LFW and I wanted to bring forth good fruit or be righteous or whatever else then I could do it. Right???"<br /><br />You would be free to choose to TRY. You would not succeed, of course, unless you are a christian and bring forth good fruit through the power and grace of the Spirit of God living within you. <br /><br />Free will does not mean that a person can fly. It does mean that a person can choose to try (and fail). <br /><br />Free will is not about power to make something happen, but is about the idea that our choices and actions are internally determined. Free will is why I can choose to say "please pass the mustard."Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68340930074901801852010-04-16T13:55:54.721-04:002010-04-16T13:55:54.721-04:00Here is where it gets murky, Arminian writes
he r...Here is where it gets murky, Arminian writes<br /><br /><i>he runs through a series of <br />choices he made on the assumption that they were irresitibly <br />caused, completely begging the question at issue</i><br /><br />Don’t both sides continue to just beg the question when it comes to free will? <br /><br />If we have LFW then why do all persons pick evil in there natural state when it comes to pleasing God? Why does no one seek after God? Why does the Bible say that we are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ? <br /><br />I’m really asking to understand it better. They way I understand free will is that I do whatever I want to do. Yet in my natural state I could not bring forth good fruit even if I wanted too, but if we had LFW then that could not be a correct statement, right?<br /><br />If I had LFW and I wanted to bring forth good fruit or be righteous or whatever else then I could do it. Right???Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64531477935522453992010-04-16T13:51:06.663-04:002010-04-16T13:51:06.663-04:00I have been eagerly reading this post. Thanks for...I have been eagerly reading this post. Thanks for keeping it public.drwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17914024954991986479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41684273230386569682010-04-16T13:01:06.989-04:002010-04-16T13:01:06.989-04:00As it is, for someone to assert that men have a su...<i>As it is, for someone to assert that men have a sui generis will seems to be nothing but special pleading.</i><br /><br />No more so than saying God cannot create beings with such a capacity.<br /><br /><i>In the case of God, it logically follows given His nature, but because everything else about man is determined by his design as a created being, I see no reason (outside of the claims of Arminianism, which I of course believe to be error) to assert this type of will for man.</i><br /><br />But this again just assumes that by virtue of being a created being, the creature cannot be designed with LFW. If all you have at this point is an assumption/assertion based on parallel with other features of man as a created being, you do not have much. <br /><br />Also, it seems to me that man being a unique creation (made in God's image) could furnish sufficient reason to believe that man has special abilities, like that of libertarian free will.<br /><br />God Bless,<br />BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63955889275154796502010-04-16T12:52:28.451-04:002010-04-16T12:52:28.451-04:00Mitch,
I didn't say that was all there is to ...Mitch,<br /><br />I didn't say that was all there is to Peter's argument. It is a major aspect of it though, I and I thought it worth drawing attention to in light of the interchange between him and Brian.<br /><br />The other main aspect of his argument is just as weak. He runs through some choices he made and considers influneces on those choices with the assumption that<br />those influences were irresistible, that they irresistibly caused him to make the specific choice he made, leading to the conclusion that the <br />actions were determined/not of libertarian free will. I.e., he runs through a series of <br />choices he made on the assumption that they were irresitibly <br />caused, completely begging the question at issue.Arminianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06255206726241506362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66735306335987774762010-04-16T12:43:58.736-04:002010-04-16T12:43:58.736-04:00BTW, Arminian if you think that is Mr. Pike's ...<i>BTW, Arminian if you think that is Mr. Pike's argument and all there is to it then you need to re-read what has been written.</i><br /><br />I think Arminian's assessment is accurate. The only thing that might be added is that Pike has also asserted that it would be logically impossible to create a being with libertarian free will, but I do not see that he has proven that in the least. It doesn't help to use examples like, "God cannot create a self-existent being". He needs to go beyond that and show that God creating humans with a unique category ability of libertarian free will is analogous to "God cannot create a self-existent being" or "God cannot create a round square", etc. I haven't seen Pike do that yet, though he continues to assert that it is the case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48793108888814060372010-04-16T12:36:34.455-04:002010-04-16T12:36:34.455-04:00Actually, I think I would like to see the discussi...<i>Actually, I think I would like to see the discussion continue here. What Brian is very interesting.</i><br /><br />I second that. I think it should remain public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com